User talk:Acalamari: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Acalamari Archive A; Acalamari Archive B; Acalamari Archive C; Acalamari Archive D; Acalamari Archive E; Acalamari Archive F; Acalamari Archive G; Acalamari Archive H; Acalamari Archive I; Acalamari Archive J;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 31 July 2007

edit count | edit summary usage

Hello Wikipedians and people who are not-yet Wikipedians.

This is my User Talk Page. You can contact me here. If you are a registered user who wishes to send an E-mail to me, please feel free to use the "E-mail This User" feature in the toolbox on the left side of this page. I also encourage everyone to read the contents of my Talk Page, and my archives, as well. Acalamari 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: if you post a message on my talk page and don't receive a response, please be aware that I might have responded here. However, I'm likely to respond on both my talk page and yours anyway. I've learned that it's best to keep a discussion in the same place in order to avoid confusion.

Email

I've replied. Walton^One 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-sent the message (twice - once using Special:Emailuser on-wiki, which should work even if my Hotmail doesn't). Sorry about this. Walton^One 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Hotmail seems to work in receiving, but not sending...odd. Maybe my mailbox is too full. Walton^One 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Email

Got it, and I sent a reply. hmwith talk 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied back. Acalamari 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lavigne protection

Just a precautionary measure to prevent page move vandalism while it is protected. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

Thanks for semi-protecting the Ashlee article. It needed it. Everyking 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it came up at RFPP. After a look at the recent edits to the article, it definitely needed semi-protection. It seems the Ashlee Simpson article is one of those pages that can only go through short amounts of time being unprotected, as most edits done to it are either vandalism or reverts. Acalamari 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for blocking User talk:86.158.83.208 and those other users/IP's I reported yesterday. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are you saying I didn't leave a reliable source on the Haylie Duff page? I did leave a source, and it's very reliable, it's one of the most popular gossip websites on the internet. I'm saying they had a RUMORED fight, not that it's a definite fact. I was trying to make a helpful contribution for people who've heard about their "feud" or who might be interested.

You hadn't left a source when I gave you the message. Information like that does need a source. Acalamari 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou!

For semi protection of my userpage. Appreciate it :) Coldmachine^Talk 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Why, thank you. I did have a good trip. Paris was especially lovely. Natalie 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah man, I just saw you're an administrator now. I don't believe I missed your RfA! Congratulations. Natalie 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Well, since he answered the question, whenever he transcludes it is when it goes live. He's waiting on a couple co-nom responses, so when those are in it'll be up. No later than tomorrow I'd say. Wizardman 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'll wait to support, but don't worry, I will support. :) Acalamari 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect.

On a personal note, I very much appreciate your early support!

- Philippe | Talk 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the support. :) I am glad your RfA was successful. Acalamari 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What do I do about this? It's the same user by the way. --- Realest4Life 13:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this? --- Realest4Life 13:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this? --- Realest4Life 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this? --- Realest4Life 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More. --- Realest4Life 13:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More. --- Realest4Life 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, since he admitted that the discography website was HIS website, should we now remove it? I mean, wouldn't it would be considered a promotion for his website, especially since he always adds it back? Or is this not an issue? --- Realest4Life 13:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. --- Realest4Life 15:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this guy is a sock as well. Not entirely sure though, so I didn't add the template yet. --- Realest4Life 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --- Realest4Life 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starships

No worries, I hadn't realised you'd removed them actually. I haven't been checking my watchlist lately (been busy at TV.com). Logged in after watching some "remastered" TOS (actually pretty decent!) Matthew 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed them; my error! Thanks for fixing them. :) I should have remembered different infoboxes have different formats. I'll need to take a look at the manual of style for starship infoboxes at some stage.

By the way, I saw the message at the top of your talk page saying about you not being active here as much. I really do hope you stay; you've contributed loads to here. It would be a huge loss to see you less active or not active here. Acalamari 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keeping the peace.

I'm half-tempted to consider trying for adminship, but I'm frankly busy enough just cleaning up after the children... HalfShadow 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

If the user comes back while his main account is still blocked, shouldn't his block be extended? I read about it here. --- Realest4Life 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for two weeks. Acalamari 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. --- Realest4Life 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, and this is from an article that my "friend" usually edits. This statement would not be allowed here, would it?

"Without having an official single release, the posting of their songs via their MySpace page generated a huge fan base, becoming a minor internet phenomenon: as of June 2007, they have more than 48,500 fans added as "friends" on the myspace network"

I am just asking because, if it is allowed, I want to avoid some more edit warring over yet another thing with that user. --- Realest4Life 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a link to the group's MySpace page good? --- Realest4Life 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the link to the group's official MySpace page is already in external links section. So is it OK to add that information? --- Realest4Life 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source would be the group's MySpace. So do I just link to their MySpace twice? If not, then I won't add it back (I removed it a few days ago). --- Realest4Life 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that primary sources thing right? --- Realest4Life 16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back.

Again.

And again. I guess this means that you make his block longer because of that whole "block evasion" thing. If you do, please block his "Lcnhop" account too, as it seems as though he using those two accounts mainly, and the other ones are sockpuppets of the two. --- Realest4Life 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs blocked for 48 hours each, Lcnhop, a sockpuppet account, has been blocked indefinitely. Acalamari 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. By the way, one of the IPs left me a message on my talk page asking me to e-mail the user to "settle this". First of all, I am not sure I even want to have him find out my e-mail address, and second, I am not sure what I can settle with him after he has been blocked for so many times after he simply didn't edit according to Wikipedia rules. I mean, if the blocks didn't teach him a lesson, then how will I convince him to stop? What do you think I should do? --- Realest4Life 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that message; you could E-mail him and talk, but if you're worried about him spamming you or something like that, I'd advise against it. If he wants to talk, he should really use the talk pages, but in a constructive and civil manner instead of trolling, but based on his past behavior, I doubt he'll use the talk pages in their proper way; he'll just troll. As for his blocks, if he comes back, he will get blocked again, and the blocks will be longer, and the logged-in accounts will be blocked indefinitely. IPs aren't supposed to be blocked indefinitely, except in certain circumstances, though the IPs can be given long blocks. This is a case of vicious but obvious sockpupptry. The best you can do is not get upset about it; getting upset or annoyed will make him worse. If he thinks you, or other users, are getting upset or annoyed with him, and he'll find it funny, and continue to disrupt. If you think you've found a sockpuppet, keep an eye on the possible sock, and then report the sock when you are absolutely sure it's him again. Acalamari 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would rather not risk telling him my e-mail address. I am willing to discuss formatting rules, tell him why I changed the articles, and tell him why he should stop adding "promotional information" at the external links and why covers are not allowed in articles. However, if he won't discuss it here, then I am not going to discuss it elsewhere. Whatever problems I may encounter on Wikipedia, STAY ON WIKIPEDIA, I do not want everyone sending me e-mails about whatever problems they might have with me or my editing. Basically, what I'm saying is, I don't want Wikipedia taking over my personal life. Thank you for the advice, and for helping me with this issue. --- Realest4Life 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet McBane420 (talk · contribs · logs)

I just read this threatening message and saw that you were the sysop who protected the talk page. I'm taking this case rather seriously; is there a way to block his whole dynamic ip range for a month per WP:BP? Can CheckUser reveal an ip check and is it possible to temporarily block his entire dynamic ip range(s)? If so, I would like to make a list of blocked / suspicious users to work this ip thing out after this current CU is solved. This is mainly to prevent further abuse of this one sockpuppeteer. Any ideas or thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

Yes, I believe Checkuser can reveal the IPs and a temporary range block can be done. However, I've only been an administrator for a short amount of time, and am not experienced enough in the way of performing range blocks. You may want to take this to a more experienced administrator. I saw that Yamla was an administrator who declined an unblock on that page. I suggest asking him about this; he'll be more helpful than I will be. Acalamari 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser cannot be used to disclose an IP address or address range but in rare circumstances, you can ask that a checkuser be performed and the resulting IP address range be blocked but not disclosed (so privacy is not violated). Often, users disclose which IP address range they are using, though, in which case privacy would not apply. Checkuser is best used to determine sleeper accounts, though. We've done that with Verdict (talk · contribs), for example, to find a large number of accounts we weren't already aware of. You may also want to move to ban the parent account if this has not already been done. See the community sanction noticeboard. Please note that I don't generally monitor Acalamari's talk page so poke me on my talk page if you need me to follow up. :) --Yamla 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and clarifying, Yamla. I'll need to take another look at the Checkuser policy soon. Anyway, I'm aware of the community sanction noticeboard, but I don't exactly who the parent account of the sockpuppets is here; I've only just been brought into this situation. Is the parent known, or not? Acalamari 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, though there is speculation that it is Wrestlinglover420. If we can find out the ip addresses, then we will know the true sockpuppet mastermind. Lord Sesshomaru

The Checkuser would determine if the accounts are socks. The range wouldn't be released to us; as Yamla said on his talk page, the range would be blocked by a Checkuser if necessary. Acalamari 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneak King

Hey, blocking is a judgment call—you were WP:BOLD, and I trust you completely. Leave it, that disruptive behavior had gone on long enough :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if my decision was a good idea, I'll put this to rest. I reviewed the contributions of the IPs before blocking, so it's not like I made any trigger-happy decisions there. Thanks. Acalamari 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem—I'm always wary of being trigger-happy myself, maybe I should act more sternly towards this kind of behavior. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Help

Hi there, I noticed that you were able to institute a page lock. I am sorry for dumping this on you, but I recently requested that a page be temporarily locked as there is a user who I am in a dispute with. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand the ramifications of his edits to the template and his changes are messing with the display on a lot of pages. I just need the thing locked as I am in violation of the 3RR because I consider this vandalism. The request is here and the actual template is {{Infobox NFLactive}}. Please lock it to one of my versions so that the display is not messed up on the pages where the template is in use. I know that is not "supposed" to be part of the request, but this is a template and not a standard page. Thanks much. Jmfangio| ►Chat 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner with that template. Unfortunately, when your post came, I had to do something in real life. NawlinWiki has protected the template, and would like you both to discuss. Thanks. Acalamari 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No appology necessary, the world will continue even if wiki blows up :-). It is a hairy situation and I your willingness to help! Jmfangio| ►Chat 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Acalamari, Re the Buy.com page -- I have made a number of cited updates which an un-registered user continuously reverts. My changes are accurate and an enhancement to the page but the user simply fully reverts the page every time. The page is currently inaccurate as a result of this tiring revert. What the Wikipedia community do in these situations?I try to engage the anonymous user (who ominously comes from Round Rock, TX where Dell is located) but they simply revert and say they are countering vandalism. I think I should continue revert to the cited version of a true article until the reverter contributes instead of simply vandalizing (because that's what they're doing in my opinion). Advice would me much appreciated. Thanks.Emccsm 01:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP message below does give me concerns; are you part of Buy.com? If so, it's unwise that you edit the page the way you're doing, for as the IP points out, there is conflict of interest. COI is strongly discouraged, and can lead to blocks. Acalamari 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment, it's funny how a user from Buy.com is inferring where I'm posting from based on a dynamic IP, and also where I "work" at based on absolutely nothing! Anyway, WP:COI and WP:Sockpuppetry are very clear and I think you violated both repeatedly, and particularly the second, regardless of the "validity" of your edits. -- 66.68.143.48 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buy.com protection

The user Emccsm continues to remove contents from the article Buy.com despite all the warnings from me, other users, and you, and it seems that the semi-protection isn't exactly helping. Do you think the article needs to be temporarily full-protected? -- 66.68.143.48 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.68.143.48 -- please collaborate

66.68.143.48 -- I've tried to get you to contribute to the article every time -- I ask you and still ask you to do that. But unjustified reverts don't make for contributions.

I have actually made edits, added citations, and updated factually incorrect statements. You simply revert it and warn me. If you simply overwrite without justification what I believe to be improvements, how can the article be accurate? If you are a subject matter expert on this, contribute. If you are not, you should not revert the article.

Why not start with any section you have specific concerns about and we can discuss it and figure out why there's a difference of opinion? The problem may simply be that we're reverting the whole article and not individual sections.Emccsm 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"66.68.143.48" here. Since you've chosen to ask here I'll also reply here. If I'm not mistaken, you have added citations that suited your purpose to the hoax article you created Daft Withdrawal which was speedily deleted because it violated WP:HOAX. I have no reason to believe the "citations" you claim to have put in this article, about the very same organization you're editing from, are not as questionable as that hoax article, not to mention you've attempted to remove all criticisms more than once before trying to "alter" them instead, which makes these edits even more questionable. -- 66.68.140.38 13:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully-protected the article for the time being. After semi-protection, Emccsm reverted again, and I had originally semi-protected the article to stop that reverting. Please discuss this issue on Talk: Buy.com, and take a look at Wikipedia: Dispute resolution. Acalamari 15:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal

He's back.

Again.

And again. This guy just reverts to previous versions with which only he agrees even though I cleaned-up the articles, also, his versions, as I said before, include promotional material, incorrectly formatting, images in articles which is against fair-use, blind reverts to his "preferred" versions. Also, again, that block evasion thing applies. --- Realest4Life 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked. Acalamari 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you. --- Realest4Life 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging accounts

There's a user who has used various accounts without any intent to hide the fact, double vote, or anything untoward, but another user would like this user to merge the various accounts, and the needs-merge account has agreed to merge. Can you help out? User talk:Giantsshoulders has the note on his/her page and can direct you to the other accounts. If you don't know how this is done, isn't this just the sorta clean, eager-beaver admin thing that you want to learn how to do?

There were some sock puppet accusations, by me, that this user and his/her other accounts were sock puppets of a banned user, and I thought they were, or that they are related. So a check user were run on the accounts and confirmed they used the same IP as the banned user, and they all used the same IP, so this is how I knew that Giants had additional accounts, when another editor brought the topic up. However, as the banned user was banned on a technicality, and these accounts are not guilty of anything that got the original user banned, or of anything forbidden for sock puppets to do, and the banned user simply can't stop putting her foot in her mouth no matter what, on Wikipedias all over the world, and Giants has not done this even once, or maintained any sort of disagreement for more than a single exchange, the sock puppetry worries are not an issue.

The only thing at issue is that another editor is concerned about the multiple accounts, which were never used for anything nefarious, would like Giants to merge them, and Giants has agreed to, all polite and civil and dealt with, but needs the account merge done. KP Botany 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll post a help request. I've never heard of it, either, but that means next to nothing. KP Botany 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Guy, and another user (A Man In Black) answered on his page, telling me that it is something not done, for future information, see AMIB's reply here.[1] KP Botany 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

Your use of a level three vandalism tag (which implies the assumption of bad faith per Multi level templates) at User talk:Smart Viral for the user's first and only incidence of vandalism is unnecessarily hostile towards a newbie. Please be careful to use appropriate warning templates. BigNate37_(T) 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level 3? Foolish me, I should have previewed my edit. I'll undo it. Thanks. Acalamari 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're only receiving this scrutiny since you beat me to reverting the editor in the first place :P When that happens, I usually watch the offending editor's talk page and add a warning myself if the reverter missed giving one. BigNate37_(T) 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category inclusion

Is your inclusion of this page in Category:Wikipedian userboxes intentional? I noticed the inclusion and decided to fix the 'broken' category link; when I saw where it was and decided to ask you instead. BigNate37_(T) 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user put my talk page in the category months ago when they were linking me to a category. It's been like that ever since. Acalamari 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got distracted before I finished this by explaining it here. Anyways, I removed the categorization; if you see fit to revert please do. BigNate37_(T) 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there's no reason to revert it. It might as well go; my talk page isn't a userbox. Anyway, thanks for doing that and telling me about the warning. I've fixed that now. Acalamari 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ihatedina

Hey there, when you unblock someone, please use the templates provided. Obviously I had a bit of an interest in this case, trying to see who it was that was so mad at me ... Anyway, it would have been a bit easier for me to understand why you'd unblocked this person. I do still think that perhaps this would have been better as a hard username block, but I have voiced my concerns at his request for WP:RCU and I'll leave it at that. Cheers. Dina 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dina, I didn't use any templates and just used a hand-typed message because the user had left two different unblock templates, and I wasn't sure which to answer, so I decided to remove both and type a message instead. My apologies if that wasn't a good thing to do. Acalamari 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping me deal with vandals and sockpuppets. Realest4Life 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's RfA

It's done (so you don't have to discover by checking your watchlist). :-) It now awaits your nomination. Best regards, Húsönd 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acalamari. I hope you don't mind, but I replaced your comment at Giggy's RfA showing a link to his previous RfA with a box used in most RfA's. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, Acalamari. I'll keep an eye on it and try to support as soon as Giggy launches it. I nearly always get beaten though. :-P Best regards, Húsönd 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Click the edit button and look above my candidate statement. We're waiting for a noob! Giggy _U^CP 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, in that case I'll add it now. Giggy _U^CP 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the RfA, and will probably be taking a short Wikibreak to clear my head and think about weather I'm still ok with the project in general. Hope to talk soon :) Giggy _U^CP 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Golden Tee

Re your message: My guess is that we had the protect page open at the same time. MediaWiki did your protection over mine because it probably thought that you were reseting the protection length. -- Gogo Dodo 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I suppose it's similar to when two users do a revert at the same time, and one overrides the other, except in this case, both the protections are registered in the history. Acalamari 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Question

Okay, this is probably a stupid question, because I didn't look hard enough myself, but how (can I?) do I request a temp block on a user or IP? Other than going through the lengthy process of Wikipedia:Abuse reports, the only way I knew how was to request semi-protection on an article (in this case Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy). I knew the article wouldn't be protected, because it was vandalised by only one IP, but I also knew that IP would be blocked by doing so. I kinda cheated to get what I wanted accomplished, but I'd rather do it properly. Jauerback 21:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, go to WP:AIV if you need to report a user for obvious vandalism. Acalamari 21:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boinkerz!

Have you checked your
mail lately, Mr. ~~Anderson~~ Acalamari?
Tons o'hugs! :)
Phaedriel
12:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the support. :) Don't worry, as Deskana said above, just listen to what was said, and try again later. Acalamari 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your support about my age on my RfA! ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal block

Geez, we just simultaeneously blocked the same clown, for exactly the same period of time! If that isn't Kismet I don't know what is! Keep up the good work, O thou noble wiki warrior! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't me: Luna Santin blocked them; I just put the template in. :) Acalamari 23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that. If you want to remove the message I left there, go right ahead, I'm leaving for the day in a few minutes so whatever you think is best. I'm easy :D ! Regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave it there; maybe it'll teach them to stop vandalizing, we'll see. Acalamari 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Acalamari! Love, Phaedriel - 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RfA

Congratulations on your successful RfA! I always knew someday you would be a sysop here on Wikipedia. Well done. A Raider Like Indiana 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A Raider Like Indiana. :) It passed on July 4th with a final tally of 104/1/1. It was a shock (but a nice shock of course) to pass with that high a tally. Acalamari 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your devotion and efforts towards Wikipedia! Well done A Raider Like Indiana 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! and your welcome :) A Raider Like Indiana 24:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay

There are things that frustrate us all. Those editors that cause this frustration, whether than have nefarious intent or not, effectivley win when they force good editors to leave. I have seen too many good editors leave this project for some reason or another. Keep in mind the end goal. You will get through the rough times and be a better person because of it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 292: / Line 292: @@
 |}
 ::Good luck with that! and your welcome :) [[User:A Raider Like Indiana|<b><font face="papyrus" color="orange">A Raider Like Indiana</font></b>]] 24:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
+==Stay==
+There are things that frustrate us all.  Those editors that cause this frustration, whether than have nefarious intent or not, effectivley win when they force good editors to leave.  I have seen too many good editors leave this project for some reason or another.  Keep in mind the end goal.  You will get through the rough times and be a better person because of it! [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] [[User talk:Chrislk02|(Chris Kreider)]] 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)