I guess more generally I want to know how someone (me for example) might help out in this particular area. Note: I'm not an admin but my RfA seems headed in the right direction so I'm trying to figure out places I might be of some service if I'm promoted. I guess Newpages is considered a good shot when the test/restoration of anon new page creation happens after Nov 9. If you know of someone who would be a better person to ask about this, feel free to point me at them. Thanks for your help. Cheers, [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<font color="red"><sup>'''what?'''</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Pigman|<font color="red"><small>'''trail'''</small></font>]] 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess more generally I want to know how someone (me for example) might help out in this particular area. Note: I'm not an admin but my RfA seems headed in the right direction so I'm trying to figure out places I might be of some service if I'm promoted. I guess Newpages is considered a good shot when the test/restoration of anon new page creation happens after Nov 9. If you know of someone who would be a better person to ask about this, feel free to point me at them. Thanks for your help. Cheers, [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<font color="red"><sup>'''what?'''</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Pigman|<font color="red"><small>'''trail'''</small></font>]] 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Any page marked as a sockpuppet, but in the [[CAT:TEMP]] directory, should not be deleted. Instead, they should be taken out of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, and left tagged as a sockpuppet. I mentioned this category on Gurch's RfA because I noticed he used to do a lot of work in that category before he resigned his adminship; and that category has a massive backlog. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Any page marked as a sockpuppet, but in the [[CAT:TEMP]] directory, should not be deleted. Instead, they should be taken out of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, and left tagged as a sockpuppet. I mentioned this category on Gurch's RfA because I noticed he used to do a lot of work in that category before he resigned his adminship; and that category has a massive backlog. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::That's pretty much what I thought re: the sock pages in that category. I guess admins just go through the list, find pages that are generally over a month old and delete them, right? Sounds very boring but something I might do. Thanks. [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<font color="red"><sup>'''what?'''</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Pigman|<font color="red"><small>'''trail'''</small></font>]] 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Acalamari21:56, 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.
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; I was a new administrator back then, and gave out a few indefinite semi-protections at the time. I'll unprotect for now, though if the vandalism comes back, it can always be semi-protected again; this time with an expiry date. Acalamari18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the essay's talk page. You might also want to leave a note at WT:RFA about it, to attract further comments (I noticed you haven't done that yet). WaltonOne10:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleasantly surprised that you were able to provide some protection for the Alexander Graham Bell article. I am presently working this article and Amelia Earhart up to GA standard, and could also use some help there as well. Amelia seems to be on every grade school curriculum and attracts a great deal of attention from vandals as well. Thanks again. Bzuk02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome for the semi-protection of Alexander Graham Bell. However, after a look at the recent history of Amelia Earhart, no semi-protection is needed there for now; hardly any vandals have edited the page recently, and semi-protection is therefore not necessary. If, however, vandals hit the page the page in force, please either request semi-protection here, or at WP:RFPP if you prefer. Acalamari03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acalamari, today, there has been a concentrated attack by a number of vandals just as the page was being "put to bed" for a GA review after adding new photos and screening for typos and the like. Now take a look at it. FWIW, a very decidely POV submission has been entered that changes the whole focus of the disappearance sections. Bzuk15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Seriously, the page still doesn't require semi-protection at this point; it's just a few vandals which are easy to revert. Even if you went to WP:RFPP requesting semi-protection, it would be turned down. If it was heavy vandalism (for example, almost every edit being down to the page within a short amount of time would either be vandalism or a revert), then it would require semi-protection. At the moment, it looks like two or three IPs, which have been reverted. If I did semi-protect the page now, I would likely be questioned for it. I have, however, reverted the recent edit. Acalamari16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would ask you (along with other sharp-eyed editors and admins) to keep an eye on this article and help keep the vandals at bay for awhile, so that the last changes can take place. FWIW Bzuk21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC). [:º[reply]
You're welcome for the response. :) That was to prevent the page from being moved to a different name; that's standard with all featured articles. While normal vandalism is easy to revert, move vandalism is harder, hence the move protection; also, it's the agreed upon title of the page. For more information regarding protection of the featured article, see WP:NOPRO. Acalamari22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Nicole Smith question
Hi again, Acalamari! Question --- Do you feel that the Anna Nicole Smith judge, Larry Seidlin, still deserves his own article? Do you think he's still newsworthy and/or a historical figure, or do you think his "15 minutes of fame" are now up? Would a tabloid article rumor (with no official sources backing it up) that he may get a TV show make him still notable enough to have his own article or do you think he should be merged into Anna's article?--Bamadude00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If his article is reasonably sourced and he is considered a notable figure, then his article should stay. I don't have an "opinion" on the matter though, and I don't plan to join in on the discussion on that talk page. Regarding the tabloid rumor however, if there is one on the article, it should be removed; Wikipedia is not a place to post rumors from tabloids. Acalamari02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; I mess the formatting up occasionally as well, so it's not a problem. By the way, I know this has nothing to do with your original post, but I noticed your recent work with images: good job; I hope you keep it up. :) We need more people willing to tackle images. Acalamari03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am awarding you a Fried calamari for your hard work on your edits and getting rid of vandals (including the Kate McAuliffe vandal). I just had Fried calamari for dinner today, which made me think about you. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the award! I've blocked a few Kate McAuliffe vandal-socks, don't worry! :) Interestingly enough, I had squid last night in my dinner. Argh! Cannibalism! (Joke). :) Acalamari23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I had fried calamari today for dinner that my mom made me (hence your username). Just to let you know that I go to the same school as that 'Kate McAuliffe vandal', and he often gets very annoying. Luckily, I do not see these annoying Kate McAuliffe socks these days. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, interesting coincidence, going to school with a known sockpuppeteer/vandal. Well, if you ever see him again, ask him what he knows about the "Helen Crisson socks, as I've blocked some of them as well (they're similar to the "Kate McAuliffe" socks). Acalamari23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very likely that the 'Helen Crisson' socks are created by the Kate McAuliffe vandal because I have heard him talk about some girl named Helen before. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never created an article before then, and if I've made a mistake, feel free to take the article to AfD. I believe that his Babylon 5 role, combined with his other roles, made him notable enough for an article, even just a stub. At any rate though, if you want the article deleted, I won't mind if you take it to AfD for discussion there. Acalamari02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a notable actor who has long been established for playing small roles on American television series. For actors who don't get the notable character roles it may seem they're not notable, but Forward will have plenty of off-line biographical information in the trade papers--the entertainment professional journals, as he's been working somewhat steadily in the business for 20 years. KP Botany17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and also for the work you just did on it! :) I made sure I asserted his notability in the first edit to the article so it wouldn't get speedied. I spent about half an hour or so doing some research on him, so at least both the Babylon 5 roles and a couple of others are mentioned. By the way, regarding Joe Meno, I've done a few small edits to it; not much just yet, but a start. I'll do some more later, don't worry; hopefully to add some content rather than to fix existing. Thanks again. :) Acalamari17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine, thank you for asking. :) I just hadn't heard from you in some time, and thought that posting on your talk page would be a nice thing to do. :) Glad to see you're still editing! Acalamari18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they've both used "VS AnemoneProjectors", so they could be the same, but they make distinctly different edits, and have left each other messages (though not uncommon for socks). I haven't seen any other evidence to suggest they are the same person, and I still believe they are different people. By the way, is there anything we can do to stop them coming back all the time? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acalamari. Thank you for semiprotecting this page. I just wanted to let you know that the semiprotection tag that you added seems to be for a tag that is no longer available as it is sitting at the top of the page as a red link and not as the message that you meant to leave. Sorry I don't know how to fix it or I wouldn't have bothered you. Cheers and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MarnetteD, thanks for telling me. :) I was typing so fast I had forgotten to put an additional "-" between the "pp" and the "semi". Thanks! :) Acalamari19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if you move-protected her user and talk page indefinitely, after all, they're her pages to use. :) I only move-protected them temporarily in case of any possible sleeper socks there might have been at the time. I do suggest that, with pages you created, also create matching accounts to go with those pages, and then block those accounts; that way, it'll prevent vandals and impersonators from taking advantage of those protected pages. I can do that if you like. Acalamari22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] - That is your opinion. But I do not think it is fair of you to dismiss the reason (Which is my opinion) I gave as "irrelevant". Whether something is relevant or not is completely subjective in itself, friend. ScarianTalk23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't referring to anyone's opinion in particular. Also, the "irrelevant" isn't my opinion at all. You see, the "doesn't need the tools" argument has been discussed on WT:RFA many times before, and is now considered an irrelevant argument. Acalamari23:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy, by any chance, that states that? "Considered" doesn't seem like a binding word to me. Sorry if I am bothering you with my questions, friend. ScarianTalk23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't actually a "policy"; you'll have to look at the archives of WT:RFA for the discussions. By the way, I do apologize if you were offended by my words on that RfA; they were not intended that way. Acalamari23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah! No worries. I'm still a little green so I'm opening up my ears to learn the tiny little intricate details of Wikipedia. In the future I will try to find solid reasons for opposing/supporting RfA's backed with policies. Thanks for your time! :-) ScarianTalk23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a new administrator!
Thanks, Acalamari! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers,hmwith talk21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, acalamari! I haven't talked to you in such a long time, and I thought I'd just stop by and say "hi". Wow, congratulations on your 20,000 edit last month! You are such a dedicated Wikipedian. I haven't been very active lately, but hopefully I can get back to regular editing soon. See you around! :) *Cremepuff222*23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cremepuff222, good to hear from you. I see you've been busy a lot recently; that's good to know. :) How's your admin coaching going? Acalamari23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh heh..., I've been neglecting my assignments lately... :( I'm justing getting back in swing, so I'll be doing more of that lately. Ryan will surely whip me into shape though. :) *Cremepuff222*23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get back into the swing of things soon. :) Regarding your admin coachinh, Ryan is a good teacher, so you'll have no troubles there. :) Acalamari23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah. Hopefully he can get a stable internet connection working soon. Thank you so much for your support! I've really got to go write a biology report now, so see ya later. Nice talking to you! :) *Cremepuff222*23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
usernamehardblock
Hi Acalamari,
I thought you should know I've just lifted the autoblock of User:Supernigger2000 after a very polite and reasonable unblock request describing how they chose the name in good faith. Whilst blatantly inappropriate, it didn't appear to be a hardblockable. Please let me know if I've missed something. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.
Hey Acalamari...I was just reading through your RfAs today, and was really upset that I could never give you support in either (wasn't here for one, was on holidays for the other). If I had been around, you would've had an extra strong support from me :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! :) Don't worry about missing both my RfAs; two other users have commented about missing my second RfA, so don't feel left out or anything. :) 104/1/1 in my second RfA was definitely a surprise. :) Regarding your recent RfA, I do hope that you'll listen to concerns listed there, and try again (hopefully with nominators!) in a few months time. I'll be supporting for the fourth time in a row. :) Again, thanks. Acalamari16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble? :) Ha, ha, there wasn't any trouble. :) I was more concerned in case you had any problems with the block or anything. I suppose, however, you can say that that vandal must be a fan of you by the fact they created an account that was your old name! :) Acalamari16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed by this and this, the vandal that re-created the account Boricuaeddie is likely to be a Kate McAuliffe vandal. Since I go to the same school with the Kate McAuliffe vandal, I'll ask him if he was the one that re-created Boricuaeddie and created the six vandal "bots". NHRHS2010 Talk 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kate McAuliffe vandal has created "BOT" names before (see here), and it wouldn't surprise me if that was the Kate McAuliffe vandal. That also means, however, that the user called "Ryulong Ryulong Ryulong Ryulong" is also the Kate McAuliffe vandal, as that vandal recreated the Boricuaeddia account. I also wonder if the Kate McAuliffe vandal was behind the vandalism and trolling to my user and talk page a few months ago, as well as to Phaedriel's and Natalie Erin's talk pages. Acalamari22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; that was a quick-decision block too after an equally fast edit-scanning (not a habit, don't worry). Glad I was correct with that one. :) Acalamari17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reverse the unprotection and redirection of these templates. They were fully protected per Wikipedia:High-risk templates to prevent vandalism, and to prevent summary redirection without consensus, thereby preserving their usability. John25418:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Acalamari, please exercise greater caution before acting on a single user's request to unprotect numerous high-risk templates. While said user was acting in good faith, the idea of redirecting these warnings has been discussed and rejected by the community. And even if there were consensus to turn them into redirects, the pages should remain protected (because they would continue to pose an enormous vandalism risk). —David Levy19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed the redirects, and also the unprotections of the templates I unprotected. Evidently this was a large error on my behalf, and I am deeply sorry for the trouble I have now caused. Acalamari20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit surprised to see this isn't a GA or anything, considering you've made 400+ edits to it. If you're up for a collaboration or something, and feel like getting a GA, I'm happy to help :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dihydrogen Monoxide, I should have responded earlier. Anyway, I don't think the article would qualify for GA at the moment; there's still some things that need sourcing and tidying up. I haven't worked on the article to get it to GA; I was just doing it to improve it overall. :) Fortunately, there are no edit wars on the page. If you can help source and improve the article and bring it to a GA, by all means: it'll be appreciated. However, I won't be doing much on the article for the next few days, as I won't be very active. Thanks. Acalamari01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I'm gonna have to get off soon, but yeah, I'll take a look and find some sources, and combined with your expert knowledge on the subject :) Erm...yeah :p Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acalamari. I haven't been visiting WP:RFPP often lately, but it seems that pages being protected are now always bearing expiration time. Until now I've refrained from setting an expiration time whenever I protect a page, simply because when the protection would expire the template wouldn't be automatically removed (thus announcing an inexistent protection). Since everybody is now setting an expiration time, could you please tell me if has a solution been finally found for the annoying standing-alone-templates? Best regards, Húsönd23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great news, thanks! :-) Hopefully this bot will drop by your talk page shortly and remove my dumb inquiry before someone else sees it. :-) Regards, Húsönd00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have a life, don't worry. :) I don't edit Wikipedia all the time, and don't plan or want to either. I do have other things to do. Thanks for your concern though! Acalamari16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Wikipedian Acalamari,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn)01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, I'm perfectly fine with that change, I set the expiry out a bit to get it off the indef-protected list, but haven't really been following it much since. Happy editing, — xaosfluxTalk01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings my friend. Just a heads up that you have a Wikipedia email. No hurry for a reply or anything; just letting you know. Enjoy your holiday. Cheers, Sarah12:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there.
I'm messaging you about this because you happen to be the individual who indefinitely banned the suspected sockpuppeteer Laughing Joker. It seems to me that the puppetry has continued. I was originally typing this on another editor's talk page, but I assumed you might be more familiar with possible solutions, so I'm pasting it here. Hopefully, you'll check this soon enough from an available internet access point (enjoy your vacation).
There are multiple users who are persistently changing this text on Mary (mother of Jesus):
People who are neither Christian nor Muslim generally doubt that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. In the second century, the polemicist Celsus (recorded in Origen's Contra Celsum 1.28-32) claimed that Mary had relations with a Roman soldier and then married Joseph who protected her from the harsh Jewish laws of the time which would have sentenced her to death by stoning for such an act.[1]
To something along these lines (some edits change one or more aspects of it, but this is the general "outcome" which seems apparent):
Many generally doubt that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. In the second century, the polemicist Celsus (recorded in Origen's Contra Celsum 1.28-32) stated that Mary had in fact had sex with a Roman soldier, then married Joseph who protected her from being stoned to death.[2]
The problem with these changes are numerous. First, it is clear that "many" is misleading term, and its replacement has not been supported by any sort of source. The original phrasing isn't perfect, but it's much more accurate. Secondly, this user has an obsession with specifying the term "had sex", for whatever reason. It should be noted that "had sex" is no more specific than "had relations", and additionally, the latter phrasing more accurately depicts the biblical claim quoted in the sentence prior to the text shown above (additionally, an earlier section already details this, stating clearly that Jesus was claimed to be an illegitimate child by Celsus- therefore making this paragraph somewhat redundant as it is). Maybe the individual gets a rise out of the change to "had sex"; I'm not in favor of censorship, but the usage here of "had sex" seems entirely unnecessary. As for the latter change, it has only been made once or twice, and is simply an inferior, less informative phrasing.
These changes have been made numerous times by 3 different users. Looking at the history, it would appear that this person is cycling between accounts to revert changes to his/her preferred version. It should be noted that there seems to be some cohesion between the usernames, as the changes occur consecutively (and always regarding this section); for example, when I'd explained my reversion of an anonymous user, one of the other users subsequently responded directly by incorporating both terms in a sloppy manner (again, the obsession with this terminology, I don't understand). Again, this example isn't strong in and of itself, but when considering the edit history on the page, it begins to look suspicious.
Two of the users, User:Joker828 and User:CptHowdy, were already suspected sock puppets of User:Laughing Joker. User:JokersWild1, the most persistent editor, seems to fit the bill as well (and as such, I've placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on his/her page). Looking at the edit history of these accounts makes it rather clear that they are, likely to be the same user, and at the very least, are working together unusually closely:
Now, it seems rather clear to me that Laughing Joker is at it with more puppets. Again, I'm posting this here, because of your own familiarity with the puppeteer, at least in that you banned him/her indefinitely. Do you think that this is sufficient information to bring up a case?--C.Logan02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a dynamic IP now vandalising my talkpage with personal attacks. Any advice as I think it's they're third IP address in the last ten minutes, the first two got blocked but it seems that this vandal is relentless. AngelOfSadness talk 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the proper procedure to request a block in this case? I ask since I watch this page, and also because when User:SchuminWeb was being abused by IP-socks, I tried reporting it at ARV and one of my reports got declined. Feel free to reply here, I'll watch for it. Thanks. --ClubjuggleT/C19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I was an admin and dealing with socks like this, I would normally ask an administrator familiar with the case to block the vandals. An AIV report would be rejected. Acalamari19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK cool. As long as I don't have to resort to getting the talkpage protected aswell, or is that even possible for talkpages?. Anyway thank you soo soo much again. :D AngelOfSadness talk 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that bad yet. If there was more vandalism edits than reverts in a minute well then maybe. But they're currently every few minutes which is not so bad.:D AngelOfSadness talk 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually noticed that immediately upon reverting the user's blanking of Alison's page, and that is the exact reason I removed all of Alison's various subpages that were transcluded to that editor's userpage, while it is fine to copy someone's usepage design, copying their confirmed identity, contributions, etc., is not really appropriate, lol. Thanks for blocking the user. Ariel♥Gold22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I wondered when I reverted the first blanking, if it wasn't just a mistake, that the editor accidentally blanked Alison's page while trying to copy the design, but then the editor did it again, so, I understood your actions. Time shall tell, I guess! Ariel♥Gold22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was too hasty with that block. Unfortunately, Alison gets trolled almost daily, and vandals have copied her user page before, so I thought this was a vandal doing just that when instead, it was more likely someone who made a good-faith error. Acalamari22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be hard on yourself, I've reverted Alison's page sooo many times, I realize it is frequently hit, and when it is done twice in a row, and warnings given, it is reasonable to make the assumption that it was intentional. In this case, we were wrong, and I think it is great that you took the time to listen to the editor, and then welcome them after unblocking, and I too issued an apology on my own behalf, as well as explained the reasoning behind my removing Alison's personal information from the editor's userpage so they understand it. I think we're probably dealing with a young girl, who is just unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and I think you handled it quite well. I give you a Gold star! File:Vista-services.png :o) Ariel♥Gold22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to thank me, I realize that I've not had the pleasure of actually getting to talk to you before, I don't think, but of course I've seen you around, and I highly respect you as an administrator, you are always reasonable, kind, and helpful. And this issue we ran into just proves that even more. ~*Smile*~ Ariel♥Gold22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Shows me how good my memory is! ~*Giggle*~ Well, you get off easy, every time I come to you I'm thanking you instead of bugging you with an issue I need admin help on! lol. Ariel♥Gold22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm, not sure which one auto-adds it, since ClueBot didn't revert her, I'm not sure how she got on the list, actually, but she's on the one that MiszaBot is running in #cvn-wp-en. I'm in #wikipedia-en-help and the other channel. Ariel♥Gold23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an IRC blacklist, I won't be able to help you, as I don't use IRC. A administrator with IRC capabilities, such as Ryan Postlethwaite or Alison would be needed for this. Acalamari23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Arielgold is right, I am young. and naive:-) I would just like to thank you for taking the time to listen to my side of the story. I will remember that forever! You did what you were supposed to do giving the situation and I COMPLETELY understand the thinking behind your actions. Do not feel bad at all. Thanks again:-) Oh, and congrats on the gold star. Those things seem pretty major from what I've seen so far.:-)Irishforever1622:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Irishforever16, I'm glad you're not upset or anything. I really hope you won't be scared off by this incident, and will instead stay here and contribute. Oh, and don't worry about being young, I'm only 16. :) Acalamari22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW I AM HONORED!
Thank you soooooooooooo much for the wikicookie! I didn't know you could give people awards except for the goldstar! I am truly honored that a real administrator gave me a wikicookie! I can't wait to tell my mom! Thanks! Are regular people( not admin.) allowed to give out awards? because I would give you a pink star. ( If they exist) PInk is my favorite color. Just wondering and again, THANKS!Irishforever1622:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be more mature and I thought you were an adult! I have been told that I act too old for my age but it comes with being an only child and your parents are the only ones you talk to at home. I guess I started talking like them. I showed my mom the wikicookie and she said it was cute. And yeah, I'm 15. I was wondering if there is a way to get those userbox thingies to be pink and my background to be pink. I like allison's page, i just would like for it to be pink. Thanks!Irishforever1622:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at designing user pages, but asking Alison herself to help you might be a good idea. Maybe ArielGold will be able to help you with that as well. :) Acalamari23:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the perfect award for you. It's a niceness to newcomer award I just can't figure out how to get it on your page( lol). Could you tell me how to " give it to you?" Wow if I did this with presents at christmas I'd get beat up. lol. Irishforever1623:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Barnstar! :) I've removed your two previous attempts in accordance with your request. By the way, you don't have to start a new section everytime you respond; when you want to respond to someone, rather can creating a new section, you can click on the "edit" button next to each section. :) Acalamari23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh... right. Sorry bout that! I am so excited to start contributing to wikipedia. Do you know of a place where I can find these so called " userboxes" I can't find them anywhere. Thanks for all your time and patience, I really appreciate it!Irishforever1623:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ohh thanks! and I have one more quick question. is there a faster way to reply to yu rather than clicking on your page, clicking discussion, and clicking edit? It just seems like there must be an easier way. Just wondering. Thanks for all you time and support. Hopefully in a year I will develop into an amazing wikipedian like you and Arielgold. Just a dream of mine:-) Irishforever1623:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any faster way to respond other than either watchlisting my user and talk page for easier access to those pages, or going into your recent contributions and clicking on "User talk:Acalamari". The other way would be to add a link to my user and talk page from your user or talk page if you wanted. Acalamari23:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how do you add a link from my page to yours because I would like that. It would make things so much easier. Or maybe I'm just being a sissy.Either way, it would be nice to have a link. Could you make link or explain how to do it? If yu don;t have time it's okIrishforever1623:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In a variety of ways: for three examples, you could add [[User talk:Acalamari]] or [[User talk:ArielGold]] to your user/talk page, or, if you prefer, something like {{user|Acalamari}} or {{user|ArielGold}}, or {{admin|Acalamari}}. Acalamari23:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Wiki Birthday!
Happy Wiki Birthday, to you! ♫ ♪ Happy Wiki Birthday, to youuuuu, Happy Wiki Birthday, ♪ dear Acalamariiiiii, ♫ ♪ ♫ Happy Wiki Birthday, to youuuuuuu ♫ ♪ ♫ (and many more....) One year ago today, Wikipedia was blessed to have you join the community. Thank you for all you do, and cheers to your first anniversary! Ariel♥Gold02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ariel, happy, happy, anniversary! We are truly blessed to have you around! I hope you'll be here for many years to come. Love, Neranei(talk)02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the calendar says the 19th, who counts hours? Milk that anniversary for all its worth! Break out the bubbly, and let's have a party! Ariel♥Gold02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Fried calamari for Acalamari
Here is a treat for your Wiki-birthday. It has been one year since you joined Wikipedia! Happy Wiki user creation anniversary! I had fried calamari today for dinner because I knew that that today, October 19, is your user creation anniversary, and I was thinking about you, so I went to a restaurant and had fried calamari there. I am the one who uploaded the picture of the fried calamari on your left. I took a picture of that fried calamari. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Like I said before, I was thinking about you so I went into a restaurant and had fried calamari there to think about your anniversary. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realm of Nauga had been roundfiled, but now appears to have risen from the dead somehow, sans infobox. I'm curious as to the rationale. Is it normal for articles to pop in and out of existence like this? D. Brodale02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the administrator who deleted the page, and I had an E-mail from the creator, who said they wanted to improve it. I restored the page for them to give them a chance to improve the article. Acalamari02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. So, in case improvements aren't made to address the original concerns, it has to go through AfD given its run-through as a speedy? D. Brodale02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will have to go through AfD. Also, the original speedy was changed to a prod, and I answered that prod. Even so, AfD will be the place to go to re-nominate it for deletion, though I hope the creator will be given a good amount of time to improve the article first. Acalamari02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but I suggest you avoiding thanking people for their participation in your RfA before it's over; some people oppose for before-closing RfA thanks. It's best to wait until the RfA is over to give out thanks. Acalamari17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be my week: I've had three spoofers here recently and now and impersonator on another Wiki! As Ryan Postlethwaite said, I'm "Mr. Popular". :) Acalamari15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Popular indeed :) I've asked for a block over there, and will have a look at their username change procedure (my Spanish is terrible; if yours is decent, you can have a look yourself here). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would you mind asking them to change the name for me please? I would ask it myself, but I only know about two or three words of Spanish! Acalamari17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here, User:Cmon england is a sockpuppet of User:Ln of x, who trolls FisherQueen's page nearly daily, as well as does some icky stuff to a variety of articles. See here for info, known troll, Isotope23 or Philippe usually catches the person, but I don't think they are around. Anyway, the person thrives on attention, so we don't reply, don't comment, we just remove the comments, and one of the admins blocks them. Can you block them indef please? And I'll let Queen know of the latest. The editor already hit all three of our pages, I see, lol Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of xAriel♥Gold19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming around to say "sock blocked" when you had already responded. :) In fact, I am familiar with this sockpuppeteer: I've blocked a few of their other socks, and even had my talk page trolled by one. Acalamari19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to thank you for protecting the pages for me, I know I was asking a lot on the "Request for Page Protection" page.. I usually don't ask for much all at once.... :)-BlueAmethyst .:*:.23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, though I did decline one, as there hadn't been much vandalism for about a week. With making requests at requests for page protection, there is no limit to how many you can request at any one time. :) One user either yesterday or the day before requested over 10 pages at once. :) Acalamari23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine about the one article, I didn't really think it would be protected. It's great that there isn't a limit, but ten pages? Wow, that's amazing. I guess that person likes to request pages a lot....-BlueAmethyst .:*:.00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AngelOfSadness talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello. I'm just contacting you since I've seen that you have paid attention to this in the past. An editor named Trakon has recently placed a rather long rant on Talk:Fergie (singer). Basicly it seems that they have decided that the consensus to keep it was not a consensus because they say so. That the sourses previously decided to be reliable are not for the same reason and that looking up information and then adding it to wikipedia constitutes original research. I am not an expert and don't want to create and edit war. I am just wondering what you think. My opinions are well known and I am trying to not just assume that I am right but I thought this had been settled. This person doesn't seem to be offering anything but the same old reasons to keep it out. the reasons that we had disscussed and then decided to keep it in. (I have poor grammar... and spelling I know)--Matt D15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert them or anything, as I don't plan to begin a revert-war. If they wish to invite new discussion over the incident, that's fine as long as the discussion is polite and constructive. In fact, it might even be a good thing to develop fresh consensus over the issue. I'm going to see what happens. Acalamari16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell ya what - I'll just put it here, as it's not that important. JtV was over on ga.wikipedia last night and made an impersonation account of yours and starting vandalising. I cleaned up the vandalism and renamed the account, so suggest you scoot on over there and grab Acalamari[6] while it's going - Alison❤18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another impersonator? So I can just go over there and create and account then? :) Okay, thanks for telling me...I had an impersonator on the Spanish Wikipedia the other day, and Fvasconcellos and an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia had to help me so I could have the Acalamari account over there. Acalamari18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! I got caught in the database lock too. At least this time though, both of our protections were the same, so no one needs to change them back. :) Acalamari23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thank-spam
Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for --
I know, I didn't warn him either, but since you've warned him with a final warning, one more vandal edit and he will be blocked. Acalamari20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, he's already been blocked. That explains why he hasn't edited for 12 minutes. I actually thought he'd stopped because of the warning you gave him. Acalamari20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! It was easy to fix, and you're welcome for that fix. :) Sorry to hear that you've retired though. I hope you had a good time here, and it would be good if you decide to stay. Good luck. Acalamari03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
You're welcome for the support! It's a shame you didn't pass your RfA this time, but hopefully you should pass your next one. Don't worry, I didn't pass my first RfA either (59% support: well below the percentage you had, but I passed with almost no opposition the next time around). Just work on the concerns your opposition brought up, and your next RfA should be successful. Good luck. Acalamari16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin
Click there to open your card! → → →
My dear Wikipedian Acalamari,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
Thanks
I am glad to be back from a wonderful vacation. Could you put me back on the active editors list, I do not know how! THanks again for the welcome back!! PatPolitics rule!03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely, by the way, in an FLC, when people make comments, should you copy your reply to their talk, or just reply there? Love, Neranei(talk)19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with FLC, so I'm not the best person to ask. I assume you mean "Featured list candidates"? If that's the page you meant, looking at it, you respond there. Acalamari19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much! Thankyou for bringing the incident in question to my attention, and once again, I regret that it ever happened. Many thanks, and best wishes, Lradrama07:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I notice you were the last one to wade into the ED morass and delete it - I happened to be discussing it with a friend and I noticed your reasons included 'banned site'. I didn't know wikipedia had 'banned sites', and was wondering if you could explain that remark? I have no strong feelings in the ED fiasco, I must point, I'm honestly just curious. Do we maintain a list of banned sites? Mark J. Shea12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, RyanLupin, I didn't pass my RfA. Just keep at it for a few more months, and try again. You're welcome for the support. :) Good luck. Acalamari18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good faith on this one. You first posted a "rationale", such as it was, that included only a strange criticism that "only" 4400 of his edits were mainspace, even saying that you would vote for someone with only 5000 contribs if they had the same amount of mainspace edits, but not for someone with 14000+. After you were called on this, you ... umm ... "reworked" it, so as to "put some lipstick" on it, as it were. I truly do not understand why you would oppose a clearly good editor, who is asking for the mop, and would apparently use it well. It makes no sense to me. K. Scott Bailey00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that Mikka is simply canvassing the RfAs with opposes saying little more than basically, "WP doesn't need professional police"? This--and the fact that I can be a bit of an ass when provoked--is why I would never want to stand for an RfA. You get people with less than no clue what it takes to be a good admin voting in these things, and--in Mikka's case at least--influencing others as well. Anyways, thanks for the note. I'll try to contain my anger at some of the ludicrous "opposition" that pops up on these RfAs of really good editors. For the record, I am unconnected to any of them. I just don't like seeing good editors smeared as potential "police" and for not having just the right proportion of mainspace edits or whatnot. However they turn out, I appreciate your contributions to the project. Never had occasion to interact with you before this, but I've noticed your contribs before, especially at AN/I (I think it was) and now at the RfAs. K. Scott Bailey02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Mikka's opposes too; don't worry, other users will respond to them. I've also had to make sure not to respond to too many opposes myself. :) Also, about the oppose by Politics rule, this edit and this (look carefully, you'll see it) may interest you. Finally, regarding interacting with me, I think you participated in my first RfA. :) Acalamari02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh god! Please tell me I wasn't a jackass about your age or something ... Seriously, was I a supporter or an opposer? <sheepish> As for PR, I'm not surprised at all, per his contribs at the RfAs. K. Scott Bailey02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<----undent
Sheesh, I feel terrible now. Who the hell was I to talk about "experience"? Needless to say, my vote would have been different in July, had I been active, and it would have been different if I had been then the same editor that I am now. K. Scott Bailey02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, don't worry about my first RfA: in a way, I'm glad it didn't pass; it gave me time to gain more experience and learn more. You also didn't oppose for age either. :) Acalamari03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my block
I knew something weird was going to happen when I made that block. I guess being an admin requires some good intuition. (Just think of the questions you could ask on RfA about that! :) ) Seriously, thanks for the thanks though, it's all in a day's work! RyanGerbil10(C-Town)03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Got time for a quick question on redirects? If a user takes a page that was redirecting elsewhere, and removes the redirect to create a simple article instead, after it's saved and finished, is there something in the wiki system that will continue to redirect elsewhere despite the change? I created a quick sourced stub entry for Don Juan Triumphant when I noticed that several other articles link there but just get folded back onto The Phantom of the Opera in a loop, and that the original article had been edited by others into a redirect because it had remained unsourced for over a year (and rightly so - articles must be sourced), but it doesn't make any sense for the reader to click on the link inside the Phantom article just to have it redirect back to the same page they are already on. However, the problem is that even though I removed the "REDIRECT" coding at the top of the page, for some reason, the system is still redirecting when you search "Don Juan Triumphant" in the search box or click on the links of the same name in other articles. Do you know whats going on here or what I am doing wrong? Why does the system redirect even though the redirect command was removed and replaced with a short but sourced article stub? Thanks! -- AzureCitizen17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible there was a delay in the system at the time you searched for "Don Juan Triumphant". I just did a search for that page, and it brought me to a stub, rather than re-directing me to anywhere else. Acalamari17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your vandalism revert to Alison's page, and was wondering why that user only got a warning. Any registered user here would be blocked (and rightly so) for such a blatant violation of the NPA policy. My personal feeling is a much harder line needs to be taken with such users. Just my two cents. Alison is a great admin, and shouldn't have to have that kind of garbage on her page, even if it is reverted immediately. Jeffpw17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have blocked immediately there, you're right, though sometimes you have to watch it with blocking without warning; some people insist that vandals need all four warnings, despite how gruesome a vandal is. However, I'd be surprised if anyone insisted that that vandal needed four warnings; they were clearly up to no good. Finally, yes, you're very right about Alison being a great admin: that's one of the reasons I thought it would be a good idea to nominate her. :) Acalamari18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for taking my message in the spirit in which it was intended. I just get so frustrated when I see people damaging what so many of us work so hard to build. And I'm glad we agree about Alison. I didn't know you'd nominated her! She is helpful, patient and kind--exactly what one wishes for in an admin here.
You're welcome for the reply. :) Yes, I nominated Alison back in March, and Ryan Postletwhaite co-nominated her; she received over 90 supports! :) I'm am proud that I was one of the people who got to nominate her; she is an amazing administrator. As for talking to me, I believe we first spoke when working on the Daniel Rodriguez article with KP Botany, ChrisGriswold, and Mr. Darcy. Acalamari18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God! I completely forgot about the Daniel Rodriguez fiasco! So great to see that you've gotten promoted in the meantime! I remember you well from that experience, and you were very helpful and patient--looking back, it seems clear you were marked from adminship even then. :) Belated congratulations. I feel safer knowing you're patrolling the Wiki. Jeffpw18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately, the sock/meatpuppets on that article continued to harass KP Botany and disrupt that page until as late as July. When we all worked on the article back in January, I was a still, a newish user at that time. Regarding adminship, I ran twice; in March, and then in late June/early July. Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad editors like you are around. Acalamari19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; as long as you listen to and follow the advice from that RfA, your next one should be sucessful. Good luck. Acalamari22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I will follow the advice that was given like I did with my Rfa before. I have found the advice from this Rfa to be very helpful. As for my next Rfa, I am going to have it in a while. June maybe.--SJP22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticing...
It appears new user 82.161.24.149 might be getting a little upset at the very bottom of the Talk:Ferret page... not your problem but maybe you can refer the matter to someone who can guide them in the right spirit and direction. --AzureCitizen00:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you made a comment on Gurch's current AfD run about [[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] and cleanup there. I'm curious about the process of cleaning these up. The intro paragraphs on the page aren't really very specific or helpful. I found one was a sockpuppet page. My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is those shouldn't be tagged with the Temp Wikipedian tag/cat because admins need easy access to them. So would taking the tag off a sock page be a good thing to do?
I guess more generally I want to know how someone (me for example) might help out in this particular area. Note: I'm not an admin but my RfA seems headed in the right direction so I'm trying to figure out places I might be of some service if I'm promoted. I guess Newpages is considered a good shot when the test/restoration of anon new page creation happens after Nov 9. If you know of someone who would be a better person to ask about this, feel free to point me at them. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any page marked as a sockpuppet, but in the CAT:TEMP directory, should not be deleted. Instead, they should be taken out of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, and left tagged as a sockpuppet. I mentioned this category on Gurch's RfA because I noticed he used to do a lot of work in that category before he resigned his adminship; and that category has a massive backlog. Acalamari01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I thought re: the sock pages in that category. I guess admins just go through the list, find pages that are generally over a month old and delete them, right? Sounds very boring but something I might do. Thanks. Pigmanwhat?/trail02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Also see: Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (Biblical Seminar Series, No 28), Jane Schaberg, ISBN 1-85075-533-7.
^Also see: Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (Biblical Seminar Series, No 28), Jane Schaberg, ISBN 1-85075-533-7.
Semi-protected for two weeks instead of one. Due to the large amount of vandalism, two weeks is more appropriate here than one. Acalamari 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
ResolvedTemplates are no longer redirects, and they have been re-protected. Acalamari 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Unprotected. :) I've left move-protection on for the time being. Acalamari 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Love, Neranei (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Love, Neranei (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
