Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, Adrian~enwiki/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff), to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.
I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of FireFox, Flcelloguy, Titoxd, and Karmafist. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
Thanks for the info. I will read this article also and redo the section. I read 4 other articles, the ACLU website's page about the lawsuit, and another article about the ACLU's activity in the case. I simply want to get the information correct. 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Now that I have read the Wired article, I reworded it to state that a request was made to preserve the information with the intention of getting a subpeona for the information. It is apparent that the DoD didn't grant the subpoena. I'm looking for an article that states that clearly. I have also added that the ACLU sued about the ACT's ability to request business information, but I did not imply that the ACLU lawsuit was a result of the FBI's request - which is how it was worded before. Right now, I'm looking for something that clearly states the DoD denied the subpoena request. --Kainaw(talk)02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see somebody's good at handling new and confused users in a much more elegant fashion than my own. You should be proud of your way with words. -- Rediahs03:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I figured I'd respond right here; sorry if it's in the way.)
Thanks alot, Adrian. I do understand people's aversion to jokes/vandalism/trolling/whatever you want to call it. I will continue to write here, although under a different name, as I figure this one probably carries a big bulls-eye in some users' eyes now. And in the future, I'll try not to tell anyone to stick beans up their nose.
Thanks again.
--Von Steuben05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a little bit in the way. Thanks for taking the time to reply :)
Any time, my dear Adrian! I'd offer you my help in case you needed further assistence, but considering it's you we're talking about... maybe it would be more accurate if I asked you for help instead! I'll keep an eye open in case someone feels like "visiting" you user page again. Kisses! -- Phædriel*whistle* 15:06, 14 January 2006
Well this IP is like an account, I share it w/ a bunch of Bellsouth DSL users every week, New Identity each time, batteries included. On a side note, I see that you have no trouble flirting here in wikipedia =D, 65.13.3.5203:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by like an account you mean, "is crippled and has far fewer features and less anonymity", than yes, you are perfectly correct. I know what I prefer... --maru(talk)Contribs04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of responded on the incident board, right after Voice of All, [2] and also noticed that the editor did another odd vote [3]. I don't argue that everyone gets a vote...I argue about the manner. I see plenty of evidence in the voting pattern, aside from a few votes, that appear to be good faith efforts. I also stated that I do not see any signals of any potential problems from edits prior to Masssiveego's voting recently in the Rfa's and the arbcom elections. Have a good one.--MONGO10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag says "merge with" not "merge into" so I don't consider it nonsensical to have the tag on the GNAA article, even if that is the obvious title under which all content will be kept; and I included it on the GNAA article because that's obviously where most will observe there's a duplicate article to consider; but I have no strong feelings about how many tags we use or where we put them. CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored04:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpowerháblame16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
Adrian, you obvioiusly are not a Hollywood A list insider to not know the significance of Liam Stone... please do not try to delete Stone's entry.. He was mentioned in Kevin Love's entry and was the creator of Venice Knights which just finished principle photograpy.. He is a very well loved humble and decent human being by those of us in Hollywood A List community.. I appreciate your effort in making this free encyclopedia "better" but your statement about Mr. Stone are not loving nor accurate.
You're right! I'm certainly not. Like most people here, I'm another guy trying to develop good content, that will endure and outlast me. But part of that process is establishing notability when deciding what content to include.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not yet developed a surefire way of seeing who is going to be notable. It's quite possible that Mr. Stone is going to be the new hotness. But we have no way of knowing that, even if we do assume that an unregistered user with a brief history of vandalism is, in fact, a notable actor/actress, per your AfD comment.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for this individual, but he does not, at this time, warrant a Wikipedia article, IMHO. We can't consider your claims because they constitute original research. But rest assured that if Mr. Stone does become notable, he'll be written about. Heck, I'll do it myself.
I think I'm just going to pack Wikipedia in. I have strongly believe that the aims of its founder, were good, and I believe that wikipedia is, in theory a good idea; but in reality, a large proportion if its articles are incorrect, unimportant, or just plain stupid. An encyclopaedia should be a valid resource for research, but wikipedia fails on this front, simply due to a collection of members (more senior members, I must add), that seem to believe that their views are more important than anyone elses, and whenever a 'new' person adds or edits an article, they remove it, or edit it to their personal point of view, and involve moderators when anyone complains. I don't see how any validity can be achieved if wikipedia is to remain operating in this way, and as a result, I will revert to using the many alternatives that exist, and shall be recommending others do the same.
It is a shame, really, because a project, such as wikipedia does have such great potential, it is just ruined by a few who get lost in a vitual world of power, that believe that they have the right to out-rule everyone else. I understand that wikipedia, by foundation is not a democracy, but nevertheless, should the voices of newer members still not be heard? It is this fact alone that I have found spoils the concept of wikipedia, there is no restriction, credit, or merit for members; experienced members, rather than provide advice, provide insult (except you, who have been helpful, others have been quick to provide insult, but little in the way of constructive critism). This results in a greater number of new users being forced to the periphery, and who will, after a few articles will have little or no interest in the project.
The only way I can see to rectify this problem, is:
- to give proper credit for people who have created or edited an article;
- provide greater support for new members, with useful, and accessible help guides, perhaps even a buddy scheme;
- Allow article creators to restrict the editing that may be done by other members (which may or may not be undone by administrators);
- Remove the ability users to edit eachothers user pages;
- provide an area where new members can talk (i.e. forum), that is readily available;
- give protection to new members.
- Make it impossible to create an article without references.
Until these have been met, I do not see how wikipedia can be considered a reputable resource of information; simply because as it stands, it is far to easy for more experienced members to cloud articles with their own judgements, as it is easy for new members to accidently mis-edit an article.Helzagood20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I'm sorry your initial experience here hasn't been great. I wince a little every time I see someone with good ideas for Wikipedia feel like they should give up and walk away. There are things about Wikipedia that could use changing, and the way folks react to what they perceive as mistakes by new members is one of those things.
Let me try to reply to some of your points ...
Proper credit. Article histories do show who wrote what. No author on Wikipedia is ever uncredited for their work.
Support. Lots of people try to greet new members, and introduce them to the rules of the road. We just can't get everyone. But the community is there, if you're willing. You can start by introducing yourself at the new user log. You can also drop by the Wikipedia boot camp -- among other things, you can learn how to join our IRC channel, a multiuser realtime chat.
Restricted editing: The ability to edit any content is one of the primary features of any Wiki. Pages are sometimes protected for cause, but this is almost always an emergency, temporary measure. However, your userpage is considered "yours", and if it's vandalized, another editor will almost certainly revert it.
New member talk. I've placed a link to the newuser introduction page above, and a pointer to our IRC channel. There are other resources out there, too. They're just not always as obvious as we might like. If you choose to stay, after two weeks and 150 edits, I'd like to invite you to join esperanza, a supportive community organization on Wikipedia.
Protection for new members. Wikipedia can set policies and guidelines, but it's up to editors to abide by them. As it is, editors are politely requested not to bite new users, and new users are asked to accept the existence of occasionally grumpy existing users.
Article creation. It's just not technically possible for an automated process to decide if an article is properly referenced/sourced, and the workload would be prohibitive for any kind of manual review. But if you see an unsourced assertion in an article, you can always add {{citation needed}} to that area of the article.
Please remember that lots of new users encounter some static when they first start editing. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it's important to bear in mind that in the vast majority of cases, friction with other editors is nothing personal. You can get through it, keep working to improve Wikipedia, and make it into an enduring resource, with value that will outlast its creators.
Per WP:3RR "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor." At Bareback Mountain, Moncrief reverted[4][5][6][7][8] edits by another user to versions he himself had authored roughly five times. Five reverts to two slightly different versions of your own work still qualify, per this language.
I'm not hopelessly pedantic -- it's evident to me that Moncrief was looking to compromise towards the end. I see his edits as well-intentioned, but executed poorly. What say you?
Fancy meeting you here Adrain. It would seem we've both recently edited the [Slashdot] entry. Hope you're doing well. (Bryn from Sacramento) badmonkey 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for reverting my user page. the annoying thing is that it's from an ip that i share with 3,000 other kids at my university . . . i've been back for a week and a half and my ip has been blocked twice for vandalism. I hope they stop soon, because i really don't know what to do about it . . . --Heahtalk04:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll keep it on my watchlist -- good luck with that ;x
Adrian,
Thanks for the kudos, but I can't take much credit, I only started a tiny bit of the article, after discussing him on #2600. It's amazing how large it grew in less than an hour thanks to you and a couple of other editors; a testament to Wikipedia and demonstration of <insert name of psychological principal here> - few are inclined enough to start an article, but many are willing to edit.
The *really* weird thing is that I just started reading The Art of Intrusion and it was only yesterday that I read the chapter about you. When I hopped on to Wikipedia a few minutes ago I thought, "where do I know that name from...". Pretty exciting to get a pat on the back from someone I read about in a book. Good to hear you're into journalism, now.
As I pointed out, illwill edited the page, and you can find him in #2600 on irc.2600.net. At least until he goes away. Unsigned edit by User:64.252.213.131
As he may be new here, he's probably unaware that taking substantial chunks of text out of an article about yourself is looked at with some measure of suspicion.
I hope he'll continue to contribute, positively, but suspect he may have other things on his mind :)
I changed some things because a controversy is still raging about Sand Creek and Black Kettle's responsability in raids against settlers. The difference between Native American friends and historians is often that the former don't want to admit anything and the latter want to find the truth. I am more confident with Mr. Michno's work than with some Native American activists. I saw several evidence of Black Kettle's crimes. I know that "the peaceful chief Black Kettle" is a historical forgery, a myth build during his own life and later given as true.
The fact that this article is controversial makes it all the more important that you discuss substantial changes on the article talk page. I understand that you feel secure in your changes, but Wikipedia maintains a policy of no original research and neutrality.
What that means is sometimes open to interpretation -- some see it as a guarantee of equal time to opposing viewpoints, but ideally it should mean that articles describe events neutrally, without passion or prejudice.
Discussing your proposed changes on the talk page is the best way to proceed. Thanks for replying :)
No no... I nominated him at this moment because he's asleep and has "denied" RfA nomination before. At worst he'll be delighted by the preemptive support and accept this time. ~ Cheers User:This user has left wikipedia
'ello. I sometimes do, but may prefer a softer touch if the user or IP has no other history of vandalism. Of course, every situation is different. Thanks for the suggestion :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its one of the many, many useless words I learned while working on my thesis, and I think it might be the first time I have used it non-academically. Here is the google search for the word, and it seems to pop up mostly when people are straining to defend something like a donkey punch. Cheers. Youngamerican00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why did you revert my comment from anouymous' page?
I think the maximum it will give is 96%. I'm not sure why that is, though. I'll have to go over the point assignments; I probably got some of the allocations wrong. I need to go back and do a complete revamp of that test, though. Some of the questions are too obscure and a few of the choices are ambiguous. –Abe Dashiell(t/c)11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think OKCupid may have been giving you a hard time. I just checked the stats and it looks like your latest score was a 96%. I've noticed the site sometimes doesn't like updating scores on re-takes. Think it must be some kind of psycho javascript thing. In any case, on that test, cheating is heartily encouraged. –Abe Dashiell(t/c)11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the above deletion discussion, where you voted Speedy keep. Just to let you know, a speedy keep can only be applied when the nominator withdraws his vote or the nomination was in bad faith, and there have been no other votes to delete. This is not the case, please choose another vote. Stifle10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the speedy delete criteria differs, although it's clearly not speedyable now that you've voted to delete :) Thanks for apprising me of the change to the status of this AfD; I'll action your suggestions. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 10:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were both wrong - it's actually 4 AFDs on that article - see my comment on the AFD. I'm not suggesting you're part of a conspiracy - but I'm pretty sure there's something fishy going down somewhere. A rash of inflamatory AFD nominations, appearing over a couple of hours, on a hot button issue that's been all but dead for the past couple of years is about as obvious as it gets. --Centauri02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to believe you, but when people start "protesteth-ing too loudly" and making gentle cooing noises about "seeing what the community thinks" while whacking the AFD ugly stick on a range of articles that have obviously gone through that process numerous times before, my conspiracy radar starts pinging loudly. Maybe it's just the cynical times we live in. One AFD I'd like to ask you to look at is Principality of Marlborough. It's actually an important piece of Australian social history, and received wide national media coverage here at the time. Anything that crops up in a paper about political history by a student at a major university is certainly notable, in my opinion. --Centauri02:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind is that there are all sorts of micronations, many of which have achieved notablilty or infamy but are not land-based (eg boats, floating platforms, conceptual entities, artistic projects, political groups, frauds and the like) so having that as a criteria is not a sound foundation for any governing principles of inclusion. My 2 cents.--Centauri04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Celestia is certainly historically notable, and it was also "conceptual" and "landless", claiming as its territory all of outer space. Atlantium is notable if you count international press and TV and radio coverage, and having its diplomats meeting with foreign dignitaries and such - and it has its HQ in a 5 room apartment. Dominion of Melchizedek never had any territory but is obviously very notable. NSK State is a well-known Slovenian art/music project with no "territory". There are dozens of others. In such cases, producing fungible artefacts are proof of substance and demonstrates that these groups actually interact with the real world at a higher level than King Joe of the 2 geocities webpage Kingdom of Bloglandia. --Centauri04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Micronation is the "proper term" (inasmuch as anything is "proper") to describe anything that looks like a country but basically isn't. That's a usage that's been pretty much established in the media and in most published written sources since the early 90s, and land seems to have little or nothing to do with it. It seems to exclude popular real independence movements, but anything that's considered a bit offbeat or whacky to hard to fit into another basket is pretty much under the umbrella. The intro to Micronation sums it up pretty well I think. Hope the drugs are good :-) --Centauri04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand is no different from the others - it's just the oldest and best known. It's basically 1 family running it. Always has been. Always will be (unless it falls into the sea - which by the looks of it may be a real possibility). Nobody recognises them, and nobody ever will. --Centauri05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only real place you can draw the line is how the outside world generally views it. Do substantial numbers of real people/governments think it has a real chance of becoming a sovereign state and act accordingly towards its representatives (as with Tibet, Taiwan, Western Sahara, East Timor or Chechnya), or do people/governments smile wistfully and dismiss it as a pleasant fantasy. I see no evidence of Sealand or any other micronation falling into category 1 anytime soon. --Centauri06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you one of these fools who navigates Wikipedia by way of having 10 or 15 tabs open at one time? (I can safely say "fools" because I include myself in the category :P ) --kingboyk04:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 to 15? Lightweight. If I can still read the text on the tabs, I'm not putting my back into it. Now, just as soon as I finish piping the output from IRC into Festival so I can listen to it while I type, I'll be juuuuuuust fine ...
*beating the ground with bare hands*
*how could they*
How could they?
My precious....
My precious tinyurl... gone ... gone never to be linked again
It's been there to link to sadness
It's been there to link to happiness
.
... and now... gone....
.
(watch out for PM's on IRC by the way)
I will stop the editing for 24 hours, but a more permanent solution needs to be found for this battle. If you look without the greatest bit of effort, you'll find these "inconclusive" and "draw" decisions are being made by an unusually strong Russian bloc, or those who study Russian history, culture, etc. I have no other affinity than to truth, and seeing as how I've studied this battle for who knows how many years, I'm fairly sure it was a Franco-allied victory. My opinion is corroborated by innumerable amounts of military historians, some of which I'd happily cite if you so wished.
I also want to mention that inconclusiveness amidst wikipedia members does not alter history; our conversations here may have faltered, but realities at Borodino frankly don't care what you or I think.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by UberCryxic (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2006
I've replied on your talk page. Please note that I'm not an historian, and have no opinion on your content disputes with other users, except that you should seek to resolve them before editing in your version of events.
Unfortunately Lamo, we've had boatloads of conversation in the talk page of Borodino and we still find ourselves at an impasse. I'm just frustrated since, like I said, it's not hard to see where the sympathies of many people involved in this drama lie (btw I'm from Albania, so no direct tie to any side involved; I thought I should make that clear to avoid any similar charges against me). The problem in the talk page is that it's mostly drawn the attention of Russian enthusiasts, and no matter what I say, they keep coming. I had a scuffle with one a few weeks ago and we agreed to "Marginal French victory," only to see more and more people coming and changing the result to "inconclusive," which is an abomination.
Do you have any advice about how we can resolve this, both with respect towards fellow members and an appropriate deference to history? User:UberCryxic
I would be happy to mediate if you'd like an impartial third-party to consider your dispute. If you request my input, I can go over the results of the talk page interaction and try to see if we can build consensus around a mutually agreeable phrasing. I don't know if everyone would be thrilled, but it's more productive than edit warring :)
Yeah I like your idea. It could take a while for you to go through all of that, but I'm definitely supportive if you're willing to do it. Thank you very much. User:UberCryxic
Can you help me out by lending me the names of the other editors involved in the dispute?
Originally, it was me and Ghirlandajo. After some arguing, he agreed to leave it at "Marginal French victory." A few weeks later, the results were changed, although I'm not sure by exactly whom. I do know, from the talk page, that Durova and Voyevoda participated in the discussion, so they may have changed something. And also I saw the history page and found that Irpen had made some recent changes.UberCryxic05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some more changes in the results section; were those made under your auspices or by the individual initiative of other editors? Either way, they still got it wrong. It now says the battle was strategically a "draw," when it was more of a loss for Napoleon. Not to go on too much, but I hope we could leave out statements of that nature, as then we could make fanciful statements about even decisive battles like Cannae, saying they were tactical victories but ultimately strategic/political failures.UberCryxic17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you always change the University of Edinburgh warnings so quickly? Are we basically dueling real time? Oh man, if we ever meet, remember to tell me to buy you a Jolt. I am sure you need it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.16.39 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-05 02:19:42
It's considered inappropriate to remove relevant warnings from user talk pages :)
I spend a bit of my free time keeping an eye on recent changes on Wikipedia. You're obviously an observant and fairly intelligent person; why not register for a user account and contribute positively?
Well, interesting that you should bring that up. I do contribute a fair amount of my time to worthwhile pursuits, but time and time again a strange mood strikes me where I feel the necessity to do, well, bad things. Is that what they call insanity?
No, it's called vandalism :) Was this a deliberate effort to keep my response time down? up? d'oh! it's late ...
Any way I can talk you out of vandalizing Wikipedia? Most of the folks on here are pretty nice, and I'm sure vandalism makes 'em sad.
Um, it just seems very harsh and severe. I don't want the University Computing Services guy after me again. Last time I had to go to his office and had to suffer his admonishments for about fifteen minutes. It was terrible. Ok, I will stop but I still say that looks very very harsh. Oh yeah, have my own account now. Lets see if that signature works: PistolPower10:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does he typically check Wikipedia talk pages of IP's in his domain?
It's not my place to say "go ahead and change that," but I'll speak up on your behalf if anything comes of it, in my personal capacity, if you continue to edit in good faith :)
So how you make your name appear all fancy and two toned like that? Also, where do you get the templates, if any exist, for basic info cells on your user page. You know, those cells that list your name, location, age, etc? I was also trying to get the "Assume Bad Faith" tag to appear on my user page in re to your "Assume Good Faith" tag but I don't think that exists. How do you even make that? So much to learn... --PistolPower10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. No need to reply. I will just check out the stuff you posted on my discussion page. Thanks. And get to bed! Isn't it really late there? PistolPower10:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, I'd already started to reply ...
I don't think anyone's made a userbox for bad faith, but you may want to check out WP:NOFAITH :)
As for my signature, you can edit your own under "preferences" -- if you know HTML, or can take the time to grab some basic code, you can edit your .sig
About my user info cells ... I've got nothing; I ripped that off from someone else's userpage and modified it, and I encourage you to do the same with mine ;x
And yeah, it's pretty late here ;x I'm all about the helping people and evangelizing Wikipedia, but ... it's frackin' late :)
Hey, I hope you stick around on Wikipedia. If you have any questions -- any at all -- you can leave me a message here, or shoot me an e-mail to adrian@adrian.org. If you use AIM, let me know your SN, and I'll add it to my allow list.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. I hope you'll stay in touch; I think you're the first person ever I've engaged over "vandalism" who's professed a willingness to contribute positively. I'm here if there's anything I can do to help you with that.
Ta. I won't bother you anymore today. Did I mess up your talk page by accident? Sometimes I don't see some code that is below what I write. If you want to clean up your talk page by the way, feel free to delete my rubbish. Anyway, will do as you said. Cheers. --PistolPower10:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you replied here just fine. You seem pretty quick on the whole wiki thing. Don't worry too much -- as long as you're contributing in good faith, don't be afraid of breaking something or doing something wrong. There's a lot of stuff to know about Wikipedia, but the most important things are to be neutral, to be bold, to be nice, and to assume good faith.
There's nothing that you can break here that can't be fixed. While vandalism is inconvenient, most users are always happy to fix up minor mistakes by good-faith editors. We'd rather have people learning the ropes and messing up occasionally than be some stuffy community of perfectionists too leeto for new users. I certainly screw up on a fairly regular basis.
Feel free to leave messages here if you have any questions, or to place {{helpme}} on your userpage to get help from a random-but-friendly user.
I bet you enjoyed that film. I like George Clooney even if I don't agree with his politics. I thought that the film was interesting enough to watch it, certainly better than most of Hollywood's latest and "greatest". I can see why you would like it. It's right down your line of things, I suppose. I say that because I read up on who Adrian Lamo is, if that is really who you are, which I have sufficient reason to believe. Anyway, you led an interesting life so far. I am interested to see where you end up. At least you aren't turning into just another internet security expert like all the other hackers (although I am not sure if I would call you that). Might get in touch with you on AIM later today if I have time. --PistolPower16:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually starting to get used to being a contributor rather than a mere troll/vandal. I added two pictures to the collection, one new article that is still very much in its initial stages, and I adjusted two others. So, all in all, it's going well. --PistolPower20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your vote at the featured images deal :) Your userpage is coming along well, too. BRB breakfast and coffee. Black coffee[12] :P AdrianLamo ·· 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Since hyperspace is not a recognized technical term in math or physics, I'd be at a loss to recreate it except as a dictionary entry, but I don't believe those should be present in WP, only in Wiktionary. ---CH22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see potential for a review of hyperspace in fiction, which would have room for explanation of any scientific fallacies involved. But that's obviously not required of you, just a suggestion.
16:36, 4 February 2006 Pakaran deleted "User:This user has left wikipedia/sandbox" (requested by RobChurch on #wikimedia-tech, page was causing out of memory errors when viewed)This user has left wikipedia2006-02-06 00:15
I was curious to see what it would look like if I put all userboxes in one place. Sad to say I was never able to see em all. This user has left wikipedia2006-02-06 00:18
That's sad :( You must have had so many conflicting opinions!
Meh, he's a copycat :-) I did that back in December. And yeah, it was absolutely terrible. 800-something userboxes all on one page. /me shudders. --Cyde Weys21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in this regard, it was a different page "1984" with that user's name included that was edited. Thx for the headsup. Netkinetic06:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!) Hey, Adrian, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". Your support was particularily nice, as I hadn't ever heard of you, and it came at a time when people were voting me down because of one (totally polite) editing conflict that I had had in early November. I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager♫(Talk?)00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.
I noticed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Chikhany that your signature is a template. Just letting you know that it's not such a good idea because it opens the way for vandals to wreak havoc over many pages. Also, because of our desire to keep archived pages the way they looked at the time, if you change your sig, you'll end up changing pages written far in the past. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll surely let you know if it ever needs protecting due to vandalism. Appreciate the concern :)
Right. Thanks again for the concern. That said, while I appreciate your points, until policy on signatures changes, a developer compellingly explains to me why this is bad for Wikipedia, or ruling by a policy body compels otherwise, I don't see myself changing it. It seems like protecting it as-is would address all of your concerns much more equitably; I invite you to do so. Cheers! :)
Done. I've reduced the block but as with all reductions by request I'll keep an eye on him and I will not hesitate to reblock if he acts up again. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how people who make mistakes can become very functional members of society, especially an interesting statement coming from you. :) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I doubt that'd work. For one thing you have a fairly (especially in the tech circles) face which you happened to post prominently on your userpage. That being said it might obscure yourself slightly if you did go back to just signing with Adrian. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hearby notify you that you are in violation of the soon to be published harm to vegtables policy. Please don't encourage people th throw tomatoes at you :) Tawker08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a bit more worried about the vegetables harming *me*, actually ... :)
I noticed that, under this rubric, you made some changes to John McCain. Abbreviating "United States" as "USA" seems wrong to me. The MoS calls for "U.S." as the preferred abbreviation. (Actually, in the context of the McCain infobox, I think it would be more natural to identify his office as "U.S. Senator" and omit any other reference to the country.) You also changed Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. My own preference is for the former style. It's easier for the editor to create, so we're more likely to stay consistent, and in most contexts there's little chance that a reader would want to click through to the article about the state just because one city in the state is mentioned in passing. Nevertheless, I couldn't find anything on this point in the MoS. Is there a provision that supports calling this format "canonical"? JamesMLanetc09:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's the most attention anyone has paid to my edits in some time. I'm going to go ahead and pass the buck on this one -- if you feel these changes don't conform to the MoS, or are unhelpful, I encourage you to share your feelings with User:Quarl, who designed the automated process for canonicalization. And, I might add, whose work I've found incredibly helpful. I'm certain he'd be overjoyed to look into any style issues he may have neglected. Thanks for your time :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention my (67.174.157.xxx's) edits to Ogo. I actually never owned an Ogo... too many unlimited SMS accounts at the time, and too many PDAs in my pocket. But I wanted it to win, it was the first consumer non-voice cellular/PCS device that had a chance. Unfortunately, Cingular's stupidity has sent it to rot in Europe for another few years. But, at least I finally had a reason for an account on the wiki of wikies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byChris Price (talk • contribs) 2006-02-12 13:49:47.
Unfortunately, that's standard Cingular procedure. Cingular did the same thing to UMTS customers on the AT&T Wireless network for absolutely no good reason. I've had very limited conversations with Cingular engineering, and all I'll say is that those conversations are a huge reason why my service is discontinued this month... and I'll be as far away from the company as possible. They are actually angry that people on their technical level want wireless service of a technically-inclined nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byChris Price (talk • contribs) 2006-02-12 13:59:19.
You can use the "move" button on the page to move it to something like User_talk:The Ogre (archive 1), and link to that page from your new, blank talk page :)
At this time there are no other "Daniel Amos" articles. Changing this affects a lot of existing articles.. would you like to go through and redirect every article that mentions the band Daniel Amos to this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by69.179.132.23 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-12 15:14:15.
Yes. I just did, with the exception of your talk page, and one alleged copyvio. Thanks!
Thanks for the heads up about PistolPower. I left a message on his talk page. I hope he turns his behavior around; I like passionate people. --Fang Aili23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canada doesn't have a CIA analog per se, but saying they have no foreign intelligence service at all is a bit of a stretch... JTF2 has integral field intelligence capabilities, and is known to have used them in specific cases. And the CSIS counterproliferation role more or less demands active work abroad to get the job done. Georgewilliamherbert07:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I don't think I implied that they have no foreign intelligence capability, or that they don't undertake foreign intelligence gathering, just that they don't have a dedicated foreign intelligence service. I guess I could have been clearer :x Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Thanks for your support . Oh and I don't, I really don't...as you can see :p. In my rfa O just stated that I might be removing my signature for the simple reason that I'm getting tired of it, not because I think that it is inappropiate or violating WP:SIG. Thanks for backing up, though.SoothingR09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and suggestions on this topic. It was kind of you to take the time to offer suggestions and support. I don't know what the outcome will be but with members of the community such as yourself, I don't think all 'hope' is lost. Sometimes the few just happen to yell louder than the many.
Santavez01:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. I thought I might ask you for your opinions and/or Advice. As this AfD sits there, I find it eats at me. Not because we "NEED" to be there, because we don't. But the truth remains, we are and I, for once, am taking this quite personally. I feel like we are being denied our fundamental right to exist and be recognized in comparison to our peers. Our entry stacks up, yet I am beginning to feel as if this has started as a malicious act and has now become the playground of others to make a point. You are an established Wikipedian and by all accounts a respected member of the community... On top of that you were very pleasant and helpful to speak with. Part of me wants to ignore this thread... however, my pride keeps me watching. How can I (why should I) detach myself from this as the community we have carefully built over the past 5 years is dragged through the ringer? In my shoes, what would you do?
No problem. I saw your edits were in good faith. Sometimes, we don't always get it right. I know that only too true myself. Cheers. -- Longhair08:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I've sent an e-mail to you, respond to me and I'll be happy to send a high res picture. - Jersyko·talk 05:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just re-uploaded it, thinking others might want it for the same reason. You can find the high res here. Oh, and it's my desktop too ;). - Jersyko·talk05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adrian, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl(talk)2006-02-16 11:16Z
However, not as bad as a friend who would wear brilliantly red shirts and fluorescent green pants at the same time, so you still have something to be shooting for in life... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been inside the Wired offices in SF? When I was working at Organic, we took over the old Wired space on the 5th floor, and I had to work in and around the painfully hot pink entryway area for many months before someone finally repainted it... And they were working hard on making the new office downstairs worse ... Georgewilliamherbert08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!Thank you!
Hi Adrian~enwiki/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff). On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support. SoothingR20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but if this involves Wikipedia, I'd like to keep discussion on talk pages, so there's a public record of our interaction. What'd you have in mind? : ) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the point. I do have a project in mind, and I'm already writing about it. I just wanted to discuss it with some informed people from inside wikipedia. Anyway, maybe I'll find that person after I'm done.
You'll be able to see it under wiki marketing, when I'm done.
By the way, I'd love to keep it a voice public record. I'm all wiki, man. ;)
I'm counting the days till the point where google and wikimedia might finally shake hands, that could be great. But wiki is greater than google.
*facepalm* Ack, I should have been paying closer attention ... look, I can pretty much guarantee that your article(s) are not going to be kept, and using Wikipedia to evangelize commercial opportunities may adversely affect your ability to edit Wikipedia. I encouraged you to use userspace earlier, but even userspace isn't appropriate for commercial content.
Your article is a non-notable unverifiable neologistic marketing tactic. I wish you the very best in your business model, but I strongly encourage you to read up on Wikipedia policies before creating any more articles. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help!
I like the layout and how you got rid of the userboxes, and the color scheme can best be described as jarring. Which isn't necessarily bad. --Cyde Weys05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually come up with that adjective, or did you see the history ...
2006-02-17 23:37:36 Adrian m (now 22% more eye-jarring)
Either way, thanks. I was sick of wimpy colors anyways ;>
i was adjudicated of a felony, thereby dodging a conviction! juvenile antics prevail again! rest easy, your PO will not hear of this... ;) Ytcracker03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remeber this category, which was up for Cfd recently? Well, the category was speedied well after the Cfd debate was closed with no consensus. I posted a comment at |WP:ANI and would love to hear any comments you have on the subject (and whether you think a deletion review is appropriate. Thanks! - Jersyko·talk05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made a contribution to the debate over the above topic. I'd like you to review my comment and see if you might be willing to change your mind about the vote? (link )---J.Smith07:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adrian. I came to tell all my friends, yes that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. Moeε05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't give refunds. Unfortunately, insinuating circumstances have prevented me from eating your page. Hopefully, I will be able to do so in a timely fashion. — Ilyanep(Talk)22:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not :\. But I think that's my first use of the word.
Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what they are and we'll discuss them, I apologize in advance if I have offended you with my actions. Karmafist19:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend, you're right, I definately need to be less controversial and more descriptive in what I mean.
Ultimately, that post was to vitalize that group of people to engage in a positive action that would help the encyclopedia, adding objective NPOV criticisms of the encyclopedia they've seen that would not only help any percieved outside bias from outside Wikipedia upon Wikipedia, but help salve some of the wounds they no doubt have recieved from the often paradoxical rule structure here(I can speak first hand for that, I have nightmares about Wikipedia every now and then.)
And that's the tough part to understand for alot of people, if them being banned gets in the way of the encyclopedia, just as "The Cabal" has said, that being banned should be ignored. At least, that's what I believe, I think that many of them were just victims of the circumstances of misunderstanding around them rather than the breaking of any rule, which is far too unclear in the first place.
We can talk more, but thank you for letting me know that i've been going too extreme, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I'd like to ask you a favor, I'm going to continue moving forward, regardless of where that leads, but I might wobble again towards extremism and i'd like to ask you to remind me of that when it happens.
I'm still likely going to be "political"(i'm a political activist in reality), but my goal is not to ruffle feathers, but to make Wikipedia a better place for everybody. Karmafist20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man, i'll look for you tonight, I won't have access to a messenger of any sort until after work, which is I believe around 10 EST.(My schedule is wierd). Karmafist20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Please note that this has been brought upbefore. If you think I've failed to address any of the reasons to avoid transinclusions in signatures, do let me know. Cheers.
What you mean is an admin could vandalize it :) It's not an option for John Q. Public, as I stated in previous conversations in re. my .sig. I like to think anyone that could vandalize it might go for the main page first, or some more common template, but if there's something I should know about your plans, please share :P
I'm fine with it going through normal procedures, though it seems a little soon after the last one. If you can shepherd it through that'd be swell. Thanks, -Will Beback22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble (if there is any) with keeping it and voting for "speedy keep" is that it resets the clock for a legitimate reconsideration of the article's deletion. Anyway, not to worry, this isn't a major deal. Thanks for stepping in and helping a newbie. Cheers, -Will Beback22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that. Still, it'd be more of an issue if the AfD debate had lacked consensus last time. Thanks again :)
Just trying to help out... was reading some Asian election articles (for no real reason) and found something fishy, and snuffed out the trail! Anyhow, thanks much. -- Jjjsixsix(talk)/(contribs) @ 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your edit, questioning whether I'm assuming good faith on nlitements AfD..... Well I refer you to his contribution history. [14] and these quotes "These lists of possibly not-so-played-mods should satisfy your hunger for voting down every possible mod that doesn't satisfy your contribution to demonstrate "notability"."
"So, per their manners in handling notability, I decided to quickly check up some _definitely_ unnotable mods for BF/HL/etc and listed them all for AfD (if True Combat: Elite is actually worth an AfD, then why wouldn't they be?). The thing is, that I didn't really read the articles and thought that 11-14 total AfDs from a very large list of mods wouldn't bring up so many "bad targets", but I was wrong."
Personally as a member of the Firearms development team, I was a little offended to see our mod listed as "non-notable", considering we were the #3 HL mod and bought out by Valve. Assuming good faith only goes so far when the user listed something like 15 mods for AfD, with the same message for all of them, and a quick scan showed at least 3 or 4 that actually were notable. By his own admission he "didn't really read the articles".
I'm sorry this user's nomination of your apparently notable mod offended you. I did in fact read their mea culpa before closing the AfD, and it looked like they were negligent, but not malicious. In hindsight, you were correct to rebuke this user in re. using WP:AFD for his specific agenda.
Specifically, I felt the user was making a point, but not a WP:POINT, because the latter by definition implies disruption, and disruption implies a break in functionality. I've accused people of WP:POINT'ing a tad too liberally myself in the past, and see others do it all the time, and from there flows my admonishment to you about WP:AGF. I think I should have stated that more clearly instead of just leaving readers to assume that you'd gone with WP:NOFAITH. I apologize if my reply came across harshly.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, and explain your thoughts :)
No offense taken. I do feel that I was justified in calling it a WP:POINT as I feel that deletion of at least 2 or 3 valid articles (especially the one withdrawn) disrupts wikipedia for whoever would have in the future read those. But it's neither here nor there, as he's withdrawn the AfD as you noted. Thanks for getting back to me. Have a great weekend. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You voted for a technical keep on this article, due to being an author of a 5000+ selling book, and for no other reason. I had a little look to find about more about these books that he authored and have noted some concerns on the AFD page. Please take a look at it and see what you think. - Hahnchen15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I believe the relevant part of the guidelines here to be "or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" -- one writer doesn't prop up a good magazine, but the guidelines recognize their involvement just the same. Since your point isn't otherwise directly addressed in WP:BIO, as WP:BIO apparently didn't anticipate this particular scenario for books, I believe this to be a reasonable reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
