A freshly archived user_talk page always looks lonely without a post :(

I love the smell of fresh archival at 0'dark-30 :)

—— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-08 12:21Z

I mean, people might think you were some kind of crazy person! Hope you had a good Christmas and NY. Thought I'd bring the following rather fun RfA to your attention: ProtectionBot. As implied by the title this is to be Wiki's first AdminBot. Amusing opposes based on robots taking over the world aside, one of the big stumbling blocks is the refusal to release the code as it might fall into the hands of Vandals who could design some horrific VandalBot vs. Wiki's general policy of releasing such things. Thought the debate might be of interest to you- net security and all... 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJBscribe (talk • contribs) 2007-01-08 09:50:04

Thanks for the notice. I actioned that, then was gonna reverse myself after seeing new data, but it'd all become moot by then :Z

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-15 23:22Z

Adrian! Good luck and all! !!!65.13.3.52 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-15 23:20Z

I answered you on my talk page. Shaundakulbara 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your strikethrough of an IP's vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Losers. You're wrong, IP's do count, especially if they give a valid keep rationale. In any case, this is not your decision to make; the closing admin will weigh everything, and you certainly don't need to remind the admin how to weigh an IP's contribution. The only sensible thing to add can be an {{spa}} template sometimes, but if an IP has a long editing history here and no significant history of vandalism, then they are absolutely welcome to participate in AFD. Please do not tell them that they can't, this is against the spirit of WP:BITE. Thanks in advance, — coelacan talk — 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action taken. (Reply @ User talk:Coelacan) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 06:22Z

I just wonder what you expect to accomplish. You're an experienced enough user to know it's not a vote, and also to know that a "keep" or "delete" without any rationale basically weighs for nothing, whether it's an unregistered IP or an admin. It just seems you're bringing an unnecessarily contentious tone to the AFD, and I'm not the only one to voice that concern. — coelacan talk — 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, sorry for being a jerk about this. I still want to communicate the spirit of what I've said, but I really think I came off too strongly. Have some salted popcorn with my comments. — coelacan talk — 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user_talk page. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 07:11Z

Righto. Thanks for your replies. For what it's worth, your tone did not give me any indication of grumpiness or anything like that. I thought you were quite cordial. But... =) maybe I'm just desensitized from the venom I receive here (and decorate my user page with). I won myself a Penny Arcade reference last night: User talk:CyberAnth/Deletion Talk#Take a look at this! Later, — coelacan talk — 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user_talk. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 10:06Z

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fist_to_the_head!.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to understand the rationale for this photo's deletion and have strongly oppposed. WJBscribe 01:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I've actioned this. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-31 08:06Z

Non-administrators may not close AfDs unless before the five day mark unless it is a painfully obvious snow-ball clause-type situation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu does not yet meet that standard. Additionally, your use of rollback-type tools in reverting your inappropriate close without comment was in itself inappropriate. Please be more careful and courteous when dealing with other folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your warnings to users 80.154.39.13 and 80.154.33.243 were very inappropriate, and I have deleted them. To warn a user for 3RR when you yourself have made the improper reversions (without comment) displays a lack of appreciation of proper process. Again, please be more careful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have denied and removed your requests for page protection for the articles, per the reasoning above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions in support of an out-of-process AfD are themselves out-of-process. No action you have taken here is supported by policy.

Additionally, your deletion of qualified warnings to a user clearly involved in gaming the system is not appropriate. Please take more time to consider your actions in the future.

I'm confident you mean well, but you're simply not correct on a number of levels, and are oddly passionate about it, to the point of lacking a NPOV. You need to recuse yourself from this issue until it can be properly arbitrated.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-12 10:29ZL

I am surprised by the fact that you have reverted Adrian's actions. Surely the proper approach for disputing an AfD close (even by a non-admin) is WP:DRV. Whether or not he was right to be bold here can be addressed there. WjBscribe 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This assesment is incorrect. Disputed AfDs should only be closed by admins, and administrative decisions take precedence. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not disputed by any member of the Wikipedia community, nor could it be disputed, since it was not valid to begin with. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-12 10:41Z

Also, I am going to ask other admins to take a look at this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-12 10:41Z

Jeffrey O. Gustafson has raised the issue at WP:ANI. I have posted my thoughts on the matter. WjBscribe 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I should say I don't entirely agree with your close (though my reasons have nothing to do whether you're an admin or not). WP:AFD does not say IPs are forbidden to nominate articles for deletion(or that they 'lack standing'), it says: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages ". Once the AfD page is created, there is nothing to stop IPs from contributing and if properly expressed their views should be as valid as anyone else's. So I don't think all delete !votes are by IPs is a valid close rationale. The opinion: "You can't write an article based on a bunch of self-published fan sites. Once you remove the unreliables sources, your simply won't have enough verifiable information to establish notablility. Come back after somebody has written a biography of the fellow. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page." seems to be more than a vote and takes account of the relevant policies, although the user may be incorrect. WjBscribe 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having the kindness to be candid about your opinion. I still believe I acted appropriately -- if an anonymous editor nominated an article with a well-reasoned rationale, I wouldn't close it out-of-hand. However, in the face of multiple anons with a suspicious familiarity in re. Wikipedia, the decision is clear to me, though I respect your opinion.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-12 11:26Z

I think you acted appropriately as well - especially in hindsight considering the AfD was started by an open-proxy IP editor who was vote-stacking with other open-proxy IP's and made reference to being Choronzon. Based on some inside information, I am 99% sure the open proxy editor is a user who was banned for running multiple socks. Also, there is quite a precedent set for non-admins closing AfD's [1] - there needs to be a clarification on policy one way or another.- WeniWidiWiki 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action taken. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 00:03Z

I'll try to avoid being overzealous in tagging articles. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding! :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 00:02Z

Hi there, some time ago you commented on AfD Ebony Anpu. I have opened a DRV on the page because of strange admin behavior. Any input would be appreciated. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ebony Anpu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captain Barrett 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action taken. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 00:03Z

• Any Chance at getting Ebony Anpu unprotected, ya think? Better data has become available and a lot of time has passed? 76.102.2.234 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [2]. Adrian, you do realise Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson is an old RfC from about a year ago? If you're planning on helping Captainbarrett start an RfC on his recent actions it would need a fresh RfC to be created at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2. The appropriate template to base it on is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin. WjBscribe 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as soon as he directed my attention to it, and advised him appropriately.

Thanks :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-22 02:09Z

Hi Adrian, I see that you're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. Could you have a look over this exchange I had with Nlu?

Proxy block
Hi, you've blocked 80.42.49.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a suspected open proxy. The other day I had to have an autoblock lifted as a result of this. As far as I understand the term, the IP address in question is not an open proxy. As WHOIS makes clear, the IP address belongs to "Tiscali UK Limited" (A UK home internet provider) and as such will be used by a sizeable number of UK contributors. An indef block of this account (from which there have only been 2 instances of vandalism) seems counterproductive in that it prevents quite a lot of UK internet users from modifying Wikipedia. Could you reconsider the indef block of this IP? WjBscribe 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that open proxies can also exist as a result of user configurations, not just ISP configurations. For example, if a person who uses Tor uses his home IP as a Tor proxy, in effect, it will be an open proxy. The reason why the block was put in place in the first place was that an anonymous IP-hopping vandal used it. I'll lift it, but please send something to the ISP to ask them to track the situation. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs) had already configured to allow registered users to edit. With that being the case, I don't think a modification is necessary. Again, I'd appreciate it if you contact the ISP. If they'll do something about it I'll consider lifting it. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand enough about open proxies to send something to the ISP that would be coherent, and definitely not to answer any questions they might ask in response, sorry. WjBscribe 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if indef blocking IP accounts on this basis is supported by policy. I confess I know little about open proxies so wanted to defer to someone with expertise in the matter, especially when I saw Nlu wasn't on the verified user list. Cheers, WjBscribe 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.42.49.227 is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 23 16:59:31 EST 2007. Based on the foregoing, and the stated block terms of "(anon. only, account creation blocked, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected open proxy but registered/logged in users are allowed to edit)", this block should be lifted.

My reading of policy infers that proxy blocks are for the life of the proxy, regardless of the type of system in question. When it ceases to be a proxy, it should cease to be blocked. For practical purposes, blocks are against IP's rather than against specific machines, so when a machine gets a new IP, the previously blocked IP is de facto no longer an open proxy.

The metapolicy on open proxies affirms this reading, stating: "Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be transferred, the open proxy is likely to be closed, or the IP is likely to be re-assigned dynamically."

dhcpd defaults the lease length for a given IP to one day. Many DSL and cable providers use "sticky" dhcp, which means that clients will continue to receive the same IP when they renew under many but not all circumstances.

An informed blocking policy would then be for a length of at least one day but no more than seven days. Ultimately, when blocking a nominally dynamic IP, the blocking admin should take responsibility for ensuring that the benefit to the project outweighs potential harm, and for re-checking (or having re-checked) the proxy status of the IP if the block is for any substantial ( > 3 days ) length of time.

Hope this helps :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-23 22:11Z

It does. But where should I take this next? Is WP:PROXY's talkpage the best forum or should I go to WP:ANI or is there a specific admin you recommend my talking to? Cheers, WjBscribe 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action taken. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-25 02:59Z

Would you be so kind as to fix your sig please; It breaches our sig policy (see here). Thanks in advance Glen 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keen attention to detail ;)

• Your link is to a guideline, not a policy.
• If you search my talk archives, you'll find that none of the issues raised by the guideline apply to my particular .sig. In summary, it's protected, and never changes, so it constitutes no drain on resources.

Thank you for your interest in maintaining a more efficient Wikipedia :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 11:19Z

The guideline is very clear (you rarely see use of the word "forbidden" anywhere here). Just quickly though, your statement above is inaccurate re the concerns raised in the guideline - WP:SIG states:

As such regardless of whether its "protected" or not, you are still able to change the source exactly in the way described. I believe our software actually substs any templates so I assume you're not using the traditional ~~~~ - but if you don't intend on changing the source perhaps you'd consider doing so or perhaps subst'ing it? Just a thought :) Glen 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appreciate your efficiency in researching this matter, but that's quite simply addressed by the fact that I haven't changed my .sig in over a year, and should I ever find a need to (unlikely), I'll just create a new template and increment by one.

What's more harmful to the project, IMHO, is HTML sprawl over talk pages, polluting our pristine pages during editing, and forcing me to dig through tags to find text ;>

I took this up with the guy who did the code to hypothetically prevent unsubst'ed .sig's once, and apart from general annoyance at me, he pointed out no significant downsides to my particular implementation.

I've always taken "forbidden" to be a typo in most instances, usually accidentally inserted in the stead of "discouraged", and felt it would be rude to complain.

Still, you are quite correct in noting that an unprotected, routinely-changed .sig would be unjustified and inappropriate.

... I like you! Let's be pals :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 11:46Z

It says in the trivia section that you hacked NBC in 12 minutes. Was it a thorough, superuser breach? Did it even happen? What exploit (if it's already fixed) was it? Just consulting the primary source. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR, WP:SELF —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-03-02 09:14Z

I reply here. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-03-05 01:08Z

I know this is completely private but you are listed on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O. Could you please confirm this? I am writting similar list in polish wikipedia. Greetings!--Plywak 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reply here —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-03-05 01:08Z

• He is, indeed, gay.

the adrian giveth, and the adrian taketh away. Ytcracker 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Adrian! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cunanan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, now there's a name I haven't seen in years. The last time I did was kind of a mess, as I recall. Toss me an email if you like. Philippe 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big fan. Warrush 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-06-22 02:57Z

Well that just made my day! I have a question. Were you ever into the open-source software movement? It doesn't say anything on your wiki article. Warrush 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks for letting me know. i didnt realize I added my statement twice. Should I delete it, or leave it there? BigCoop 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks! I think I had them Delete my other account. My other account was Mcoop06. i think they removed it already. BigCoop 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Please take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gardner-mug.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was clearing out the CSD backlog and came across the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 7 listed as a an attack page. The only thing I could find was that you included {{t1|db-attack}} in your comment. Thowing "nowiki" tags around it seems to have cured the problem, but I'm not sure why it took over a year to show up. I check the speedy backlog almost every day and had not seen it there before. Anyway I thought you might like the heads up. Dsmdgold 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's life? I finally got around to registering here :D -jeff MuchoMaas 02:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like the comment above, i suppose, including the :D. Ilva (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, like ur pic : P ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

both of em. very nice :D ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I have replied to your comment. Thanks for your insight. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't believe I forgot to sign my post. Anyway, I'll email you but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea of my email address being forever indelled into the Wiki page history. Adrian Lamo, the man you hacked New York Times - is it even safe to email you? Haha. x~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Lamo, I do apoligise for the listing of your article under our project scope. A quick review of the page history was unable to determine who had placed the marker there. I do thank you for bringing the issue and your article to my attention. Thank you for your service brother, and I'm not talking about your service to wikipedia ;) Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lamo-tss.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Duty.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I have a habit of doing maint and never going back to fix the problems I flag. I am working on this, and to be honest I am not sure why I didn't do it the first time. Only problem I've got is that I don't know the source, but I will try and Tineye them. Didn't mean to annoy my favourite grey hat - you and YTC are probably the first things that got me into the nerd life. But yeah, I've not checked the images, if you've not already sorted them out I'll do the FURs now. Cheers for letting me know, — neuro^(talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and with hope that you don't shoot the messenger, you are not allowed to transclude templates in your signature. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 12:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user talk page. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it is because if you are leaving it a lot there is a significant addition to the job queue. I recall a user getting told to take it down by an admin a while back, but I can't remember who the user or who the admin was, I'll try to find out. I guess my reasons for thinking of it as a policy rather than just a request is the way it is phrased - 'do not' as opposed to 'please do not'. I suppose the problem here is that if everyone transcluded their signatures, the job queue would go to hell and back. — neuro^(talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Adrian~enwiki, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Adrian~enwiki! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Duty.gif|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, get editin' ---- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't make myself look like an asshat by forgetting that my sig template included the "--". -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, can you comment on the status of the movie, off the record of course. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I don't believe it'd be citable coming from this medium.

Check out this site for recent details (click through to original story for full content due to linking restrictions which don't really apply here) =)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of psyBNC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Hm2k (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BLP, any unsourced content should be removed; that was the principle I was working from. I realise that much of the text could and maybe should be removed on the same basis; this is a natural consequence of the shift over the last couple of years for greater rigour on Wikipedia in general and BLP articles in particular. Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to find the best bio of someone, even if it is the easiest. Maybe, rather than worrying too much what the Wikipedia entry says, you could post a full account on your website to which the Wiki article could link?Martinlc (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adrian,

You recently added a NPOV tag to "Arrest of Bradley Manning". I reverted it, but would be happy to add it again, if you can give an explanation for why you believe the article is biased on the appropriate talk page. Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 202.75.35.227 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then again, I may not have one. Forgive me if I don't take editorial instruction from a Tor exit node.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about taking it from me? I have a very hard time understanding how you do not have a conflict of interest in your own article, and an article about an event in which you have expressed a clear personal bias elsewhere (repeatedly). - BalthCat (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit war with me over this. Neither of those images are justified- yes, the interview was important, but what it looked like was not- showing a picture simply does not add significantly to reader understanding. As for the xkcd panel, until there is a mention of it in the article you can't even begin to justify it's use. Non-free content should be used as a last restort, not slapped into the article as decoration. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to respect you. You cannot justify your trampling of the concepts of free speech and transparency. 62.2.134.218 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your respect, like your belief that justification is called for, are irrelevant.

Free speech has nothing to do with proliferating classified data to the enemy. And quite frankly, Citizen :AnonymousIP, when it comes to transparency, there are things you are not entitled to know, for good reason.

I do not expect that you will understand this. But I do thank you for your input, and hope that life

will never take you down a path that would allow you to understand this.

Good day & Godspeed,

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No additions to this page in a year? Your silence only incriminates you further! ♥GlamRock♥ 13:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am new in wikipedia and interesting in LGBT related topics too. Recently i added new article called <The flavor of corn>. Its about nice Italian LGBT related film created at 1986. But my article was declined becouse of abcent of external links. To my opinion this is not fair, becouse I mentioned the page from IMD. Please help me to approve this article and make it better. Thanks in advance. The link of article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Flavor_of_Corn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.13.169 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was not deleted, however please carefully review Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adrian~enwiki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adrian~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adrian Lamo). Since you had some involvement with the Adrian Lamo) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adrian~enwiki. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adrian~enwiki. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Retrotastic Lamo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]