User talk:Acalamari

; 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;

edit count | edit summary usage

User:Giggy/Australian Cabal/Tag 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]

I will stay. There's no reason to go. Acalamari 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some good reasons to stay! :)

Chuck Norris wants you to stay!
And what Chuck wants, Chuck gets...

Not working, right...? :( Let's try something different...

To Stay!

Still not working...?

Then let me just say, you're by far one of our best, dear A; and from one who has seen a lot of stress, sadness, bitterness and arguments fly all over, and wonderful people leave this place, let me tell you we can't just let go of you and expect this place to remain as bright, as great as it is now. Wikipedia is far from perfect; we are just a bunch of fallible, common human beings, and so many times we say things, and do stuff we wouldn't do in real life because of the limitations of written communication. A little cheer, a little faith, is all it takes to realize we're striving tu build something, and no matter our many mistakes we're succeeding. But all that wil be far harder, far darker if you're not here to help, and to join us, dear A. Please - please stay with us, we need you! :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You're right. I am not going to leave. I was stupid for even suggesting I go, and even stupider for editing my user page that way. Acalamari 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yayy!! Stick around - we need you & you're one of the good guys :) - Alison ☺ 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!

Zeibura has smiled at you! A smile is a curve which straightens most things, and hopefully this one has straightened your day somewhat. 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!
Have a nice day, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just emailing you to tell you that you gave yourself a reason to stay in the sentiments you expressed on your user page! One fabulous thing about Wikipedia is that one good user can still help the project no matter how much friction there is between them and the community, and if you enjoy helping the project, there's nothing stopping you. I'm not one to try and sway people towards a decision but you had answered that one yourself, and I'm glad you're sticking with us :) Regards, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go check my E-mail. Acalamari 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't send it, I was halfway through writing the above but in more detail, and you'd already changed your page back - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, okay. :) Acalamari 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hay?

No matter what you're frustrated about, don't let it change the fact that you are capable of making high quality contributions to Wikipedia in areas where many other editors don't care enough to do the sort of detail work necessary to wind up with something excellent--you're also able to reliably use web sources, a surprisingly rare attribute on the web. You and the guy who does the obscure 18th century Spanish biographies are two of the most useful editors on Wikipedia, imo. And you don't make me translate from the Spanish with your sources, like he does. Speaking of translations, I'm in finals now with a killer take home translation, tell me I can go back to it, because you wouldn't dream of quitting. KP Botany 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, KP Botany, I'm not going. I'm upset, but I've decided not to go. It was bad enough when Mr. Darcy went, and for a while I thought ChrisGriswold had gone for good too. There will be times where I'll have to go on WikiBreaks, I know that; but that'll be it: WikiBreaks. I'm not going forever; I feel foolish for my very recent actions. Acalamari 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another reason...

The random kindness of a stranger. ^Ariel♥Gold

Thank you for the nice image. :) Acalamari 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, judging by the last 80 minutes or so! BigNate37_(T) 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Also a possible Featured Candidate :) - Alison ☺ 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the benefit of Wikibreaks

I don't really participate in RFA much, so I haven't been following the drama, but if you are really upset I think a Wikibreak is a great idea. Even just a week or two away is remarkably refreshing. I unintentionally ended up taking about a month off and, when I came back I was much more enthusiastic to contribute to the project. So if you feel like you need a break you should just go ahead and do it. Pick up a trashy novel and chill out on your porch. Natalie 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Natalie Erin, but after some thinking, I don't actually need a WikiBreak, and saying I was going to leave like that was one of the stupidest things on Wikipedia I've done; I regret my actions. I haven't been as active much recently anyway because I've been reading the new Harry Potter book, and also the series itself. :) Acalamari 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I don't think it was necessarily stupid to say you might leave - you were frustrated, which is understandable. Harry Potter is a great budget holiday, too. Natalie 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was bad what I did: I'll explain why. Do you remember in my first RfA where I received heavy opposition for thin-skinnedness and immaturity? Events like what just occured may lead some people to believe I never got over those problems. At any rate, I'm not leaving; I'm going to stay. :) Acalamari 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than taking a wikibreak, maybe take an adminship break? It works for me, betimes. I just drop my usual admin chores and go edit some stuff (I'm active on another wiki entirely, where I don't have the temptation of having the sysop bit. It's great for cooling down - Alison ☺ 22:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator chores aren't the problem here; they weren't the things bothering me. It's as Zeibura mentioned below, RfA problems. Acalamari 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from RfA might, at least, be a good idea if that's what's stressing you out. I find RfA can be one of the most irritating fora on this website, but Adminship is no big deal, and Wikipedia Is Not That Important! - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't take a break from nominating. In a week or two, I'll be co-nominating again, as I promised, and I won't go back on a promise. Acalamari 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I absolutely endorse Natalie's and Allie's ideas, sweetie. We're such a big and diverse community, that we're all over sensitive when it comes to face different opinions, and like I told you above, sometimes the choice of words, or arguments, can truly get the best of us all. Just like Allie, I'm also taking part in other Wikis, and believe us when we tell you, it really reminds us why we're here, without the great deal of stress we have to cope with everyday as admins. Don't worry whether your skin is "too thin"; be worried when it becomes so thick that you don't care for criticism anymore, when you don't find yourself outraged at a good contributor being trolled, or when you don't feel sad to see a great editor leaving. It's all in, remembering we're just part of a big whole, and you make a grat difference - and that, is a reason strong enough to strive on. And, in that struggle, a rest is always most welcome. Think about it, if not for now, when you really feel like blowing off some steam! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phaedriel. The thing is, I try not to let my emotions get in the way. I've found that editing Wikipedia helps me if I'm not happy. I'm feeling better now but I wish I hadn't made that decision. Now my idiocy is stuck in my user page's history. Acalamari 23:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.BigNate37_(T) 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was annoyed that I missed a summary. Normally it tells me; I don't know why it didn't. Acalamari 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit

Of course it's ok. I just saw this...I really, really wouldn't want you to do such a thing on my accord. Your loss would be a good deal greater then mine, and even I managed to stay. But I see you're staying, which sucks... :P Oops, forgot to use {{humour}}. See you soon :D Giggy _U^CP 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Giggy, I'm not leaving. :) Acalamari 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You damn well better not leave, or I will :P Giggy _U^CP 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can rest assured that I will not be leaving. :) I won't even attempt to leave again either (I was an idiot for trying to leave). Anyway, if I left, how could I co-nominate you again? :) Acalamari 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

For the award! I appreciate it very much, mate. Hope you're well. If you even think about leaving I'll... I don't know quite what, but it'll be bad. :) Things suck sometimes, but breaks really work, as I established last week :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome for the award, Riana. I can also assure you that I am not going to leave Wikipedia: I'm staying. :) Acalamari 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

Thanks for the semi-protection on weed. It's getting boring seeing it on my watch-list. KP Botany 03:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the semi-protection of Weed. It came up at RFPP. I had a look at the page history, and it was clear the page needed semi-protection. Acalamari 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Why thank you very much. Ironically, you are awarding this just as I finished writing this which, on second thought, may be perceived as an assumption of bad faith. Of course, if anyone says so, I'll say "no no no, look I just got a barnstar"! :-) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I don't think you have anything to worry about. :) You're welcome for the Barnstar. :) Acalamari 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Flower/Animal Genus Talk Pages

Hey Acalamari, wanted to ask if you could lend me a hand with something. Lots of flower/animal genus talk pages are popping up in CAT:CSD right now that are being rapidly tagged by Polbot. I've tried to take care of a good portion of them and already made it from the p's to the s's. If you have the time, could you take a look at them in CAT:CSD and delete them if you see them pop up? Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help. I just tried to delete one but it seems you got there before me. :) Acalamari 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Me and NawlinWiki have made it to the x's :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew that took awhile. Hope that Polebot will take a break now. That bot created alot of cleanup work :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was late though; I only deleted four pages. I would have responded sooner and would probably have got more pages deleted, but unfortunately, I was caught up with something in real life. :) I've never cleaned up a bot's work before (not with the administrator tools anyway), so that was my first time with that. Acalamari 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time in a long time I enjoyed a huge Denny's breakfast ^_^...so I think I can afford to skip lunch...lots of calories.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, however, it is so nice to see you back. It's great to see a friendly smile and a green "online" where you "status" indicator is. :) Acalamari 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this all of you. The pages were initially redirected because the bot put the palms under their common names, so they couldn't be then moved again when folks decided they had to be somethinged or othered due to monotypical species--Acalamari knows how competent I am at tagging things.... KP Botany 20:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, particularly thanks to Persian Poet Gal for seeing they were all a group that could be taken care of quickly. KP Botany 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job spotting my newest spoofer. Ah the many wiki-love affairs I end up in...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you check my request for unprotection.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the protection level to edit=autoconfirmed move=sysop; you can now edit the page. I've also informed the protecting administrator as well. Acalamari 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Acalamari 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: SummerSlam 2007

Good lord, what is it with all these posts about that page!? :-) Anyway, I didn't see that anons were inserting the material and not autoconfirmed users, so I'm fine with dat. :-) —« ANIMUM » 02:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and some autoconfirmed users were adding unannounced material into the article, so I'll watchlist it to see how things progress. —« ANIMUM » 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surgeon biography Robert Devenyi

When you get a moment, can you see if you can find, on-line, a single biographical source about this doctor? I can find all the medical crap, and that doesn't really need anything, but the article overall needs one single source that "asserts his notability." It's not urgent, but I would appreciate if you could find anything. I will keep looking, also. As he is a sports team surgeon, it is likely that there is a news article on him somewhere, but I can't find one. KP Botany 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be happy to do that. :) By the way, I wish I had been able to find more about Melvyn Rubenfire; I tried to find things like his birthday. I managed to source some things and do some formatting fixes, but apart from that, nothing huge. Acalamari 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find much about him either, but I'll look him up next time I have to do research at UCSF. The article, as it now stands, is just fine, though, so there's no hurry. KP Botany 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration

Hello, I noticed that you granted the semi-protection of the walmart article - I would respectfully request that you upgrade it to full protection, lest the same registered users who were pushing the biased POV before do so again.

The Phantom Judge 69.95.241.83 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the users who are "POV pushing" are actually removing vandalism and other disruption, as shown in edits like this, where someone vandalized the external links section, and listed the usernames of four users there as well. Full protection is not needed. Acalamari 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the external link they add is not biased....

Once again, I will ask you to reconsider. Keeping the article the way it is now would be the HONORABLE thing to do.

69.95.241.83 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page because of heavy vandalism. If you want to discuss the removal of the link, please discuss it on Talk: Wal-Mart and not here. Thank you. Acalamari 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that they used you to break the rules. See the bolded part below. Semi-protection Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:

Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush.[1] Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted. User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user. Temporary semi-protection may be used for:

Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions. Semi-protection should not be used:

- As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.

- In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to

 lock out the anonymous users.

- With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used

  only to prevent continuing disruption.

YES - this was a content dispute. Yet you appear to give them preferential treatment because they are "wikipedia assistants".

If I were you, I would speak up and quickly to prove that is not the case.

Psycho Samurai 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask a more experienced administrator. When I viewed the edits to the page, it looked like vandalism to me. Acalamari 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protection reviews

No problem, just give me a few minutes. Natalie 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is long, so here's a summary: I don't think there is a content dispute here. Your protection was and is appropriate.

I've reviewed the page's history for the last two days, which was the last 45 edits, and made a tally of good anon edits, obviously bad anon edits, questionable (i.e. possibly edit warring) anon edits, obviously bad username edits, good username edits (mostly reverting obvious vandalism) and questions (i.e. possibly edit warring) username edits. Of 45 edits total, 20 were from anonymous editors and 25 from logged in editors. 11 anon edits and one logged in edit were obviously vandalism (blanking the page, changing "Walton" to "Elvis", etc). 4 anon edits were good, as were 18 username edits. The questionable edits came down to the repeated addition and removal of a website address and a subsequent rant about the website address. Presumably, this is the content dispute they are referring to.

The potential content dispute apparently starts with a user removing a website because it was a yahoo group, thus requiring a sign up, and because it was likely biased, given the name. An anon readded the website with an edit summary suggesting that they have a history here. They were reverted by User:Jpgordon and proceeded to replace the entire page with a self described "Declaration". I would say that entire edit shows an intent to disrupt, as well as an attempt to recruit others to disrupt. The same anon then changes numerous citations to the disputed website, removes a link to a different website and, when challenged, adds a rant about the external links on the article. I would say the edit summary "you are now targeted because of it" shows an obvious intention to disrupt. One other anon takes them up on the invitation to disrupt the article and reverts to the rant twice, and the original problem editor reverts to the rant once. Another anon then starts more traditional vandalism.

I'm hesitant to say that this is simple vandalism, because they obviously have something more to say than "ha ha ha, I erased your article" or whatever. But this really isn't a straight up content dispute either. The additions being made were obviously inappropriate - rants about an article subject don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, especially not in the article about that subject, and rants about Wikipedia policies belong on the talk page, if anywhere. No logged in editors were making similar edits, almost every revert was done by a different editor. That leads me to believe that this is not a content dispute, since I find it unlikely that a dozen logged in editors who all contribute in vastly different ways and one anon would have all teamed up to fight against one link. So, all in all, it seems like this anon had a complaint about the removal of a link and, instead of taking it to the talk page or the editor responsible for the edit, they flew off the handle and startled vandalizing the page. I certainly don't think you protected with the intent of locking an anon out of a content dispute. Neither do I think that the protection has had that effect, because I think it's a stretch to call this a content dispute. It could have gone that way if the anon had reacted differently, but they chose to declare war on Wikipedia, threaten to follow people around the internet, and continuously post a rant on the article.

Thanks for bearing with this! Natalie 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple fact: I do not beat around the bush when it comes to people showing a biased one sided view of things, nor do I attempt to reason for very long with those who are obviosly of the type to not listen (IE: those who have closed minds). I also have near ZERO tolerance for such people, since they have no tolerance for anything that doesn't fit their narrow views. Know that I do not go to war unless I am damned sure that I am right, and will use whatever tactics necessary to bring about a timely surrender of my adversary, no matter the cost(ESPECIALLY when one is dealing with a suspected or known ally of such a dishonest company).

For the record, I CAN tell you that anon 69.243.246.69 was the only one not me - and yes, I DO have many "tools" at my disposal to defeat blocking. You have only seen a small fraction of them. Whether 69.243.246.69 was one of the "Sons Of Liberty" or not.... your guess is as good as mine, as I know none of their IP#s. While not exactly an intelligent edit, I'm willing to bet their addition at least made you chuckle - as it did me.

I had asked for either the restoration of the yahoo link, or the removal of the facts link. Instead, I recieved what amouted to double talk from the primary offender. Having seen this type of attitude before, I decided to not waste further time with politeness, and deal with them in the only manner their kind seems to understand. And again - for thwe record - I never declared war on wikipedia itself, Only those who pushed an agenda of lies and twisted facts. The fact that neither of you (Acalamari & Natalie) were targeted should tell you that.

In short, know with certainty that I do not "draw my sword" for no reason. And when I do, it is when I KNOW that the cause I fight for is just.

Psycho Samurai 00:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the above at the user's page. As far as the time it took, don't worry about it. I'm in the middle of a month long break from school, so I have tons of time on my hands. I needed more practice articulating conclusions I come to after these types of investigations anyway! Natalie 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Penn

Joae1975 has also been hitting Sean Penn as an anon IP, so you may want to keep an eye on the article in case it needs a semiprotect. Acroterion _(talk) 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be necessary for right now, but I'll check on it in case it's needed later. If he used those IPs when using that account, those IPs should be blocked for the time being. Thanks for telling me. :) Acalamari 02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's RfA

Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs.[2] My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --El on ka 02:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome for the kind words. :) By the way, in the next few days I'll be sending an E-mail to you so look out for that. :) Acalamari 02:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. :) And if you use IMs, feel free to say hi! --El on ka 03:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something beautiful...

Here is a userbox for you. Spread the love, and give it to another user, so that they, too will feel that it is a beautiful day.
{{User:Neranei/userboxes/beautiful}}
User:Neranei/userboxes/beautiful

Have a beautiful day!
I'm glad you decided to stay! :)
Love,
Neranei

Thank you for your flowers, kind words, and userbox. :) Acalamari 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Hope all is well. If you need anything, you know where to find me! :) Neranei ^T/C 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing motherf***er is at it again!

cur) (last) 15:47, 5 August 2007 Gscshoyru (Talk | contribs) (57,389 bytes) (→External links - re-add link to Wal-mart's own site, removed by trolling, because true or not, this is an article about the company, and liking to their site is fair game) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wal-Mart&diff=149359280&oldid=149328600

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in regards to "selective POV" - this little bastard adds whatever he wants, while claiming everyone else's are wrong.

REMOVE THE LINK.

Psycho Samurai 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Phoenix

Why am I not surprised... Natalie 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:Barbaraalton

VirtueOnline (and others).[3] Rklawton 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me; how did you find out about it? To be honest, I didn't know there was news coverage about that user. All I did was delete the user/user talk page because they'd been in CAT:TEMP for some time! I didn't expect to get slightly mentioned in a news article for the deletion of those pages. Wow... Acalamari 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Oh, thanks! I very much appreciate it! Hope all is well! Love, Neranei ^T/C 01:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it was something I thought you'd want to know. :) Oh, and yes, all is well, same with you I hope. Acalamari 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Hope you liked the userbox! Neranei ^T/C 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, thank you. :) I see that you've now enabled E-mail. Well, I'll send one to you in the next couple of days or so. Acalamari 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will be sure to check for it! Brightest blessings, Neranei ^T/C 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks and autoblock

It appears that you're leaving autoblock enabled for username blocks. Please don't, this prevents them from coming back and creating proper accounts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones did I leave the autoblock enabled on recently? I always softblock good-faith usernames and hard-block bad-faith usernames (which is what I was instructed to do). Can you please point out which good-faith usernames I hardblocked? Feel free to unblock and reblock them all. Thanks. Acalamari 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who instructed you to hardblock bad-faith usernames? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading it here, here, and here. I was also asked about it sometime ago, and I'll link to that if you want. Acalamari 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RFA, I'm looking forward to it! --AW 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NerdBoy block

Gracias. Reverting him was getting annoying. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) That user was both a vandalism-only account and an account created to attack you. Acalamari 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal

Hello Acalamari. I am here to inform you that your userpage or talk page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal. Please don’t panic; there is nothing you can do about it. You are hereby invited to join the Cabal, and help conquer other pages for our cause. See User:Giggy/Australian Cabal for more information. Thank you, have a nice day, and welcome to Australia. Giggy ^Talk 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! By removing that, you breach the EFD policy. You're going down now ;P Giggy ^Talk 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muahahah...keep it that way! Giggy ^Talk 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block on User:76.238.50.188

At the time, yes I did, four edits only from the account, all tremendously offensive. However, I take the point that it's an anon IP editor so I've reduced the block to two weeks and modified the block message accordingly. Thanks for your nudge, hope that's appropriate enough...! The Rambling Man 06:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then; I wasn't accusing you or anything. I just thought it would be better to ask you rather than just unblock and reblock. Acalamari 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate your nudge, it was over the top I'm sure, so I've fixed it. Thanks again. The Rambling Man 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Buy.com

It seems like this page has been protected for long enough. If a couple of users are causing problems, they should be dealt with individually rather than leaving the article fully protected for very long periods of time. I would like to help clean up this article and flesh it out, but it's not going anywhere until it gets unprotected. --Tjsynkral 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected in accordance with your request. Go ahead and improve the article, it needs it! :) Acalamari 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Wario

I think we should have indef. protected it actually, for 3 months it has been protected 3 times and is vandalized a lot. It is a common target for vandals, barley any legit edits. Just a question. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the history, I'll extend the semi-protection to two months. I still don't think indefinite semi-protection is necessary, but extension of the current semi-protection is fine. Acalamari 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H

I need to get into contact with H. Do you know how? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect H's privacy, and I am not willing to tell anyone. Acalamari 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Good luck! :) Acalamari 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License Plates

I've browsed quite a bit of automobile articles on here recently and noticed a lot of the license plates appear to have been "whited out" or simply not in the picture. At Image:Ford cz ubt.JPG though, the license plate shows along with the numbers. Should it be whited out? -WarthogDemon 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, to be honest; I don't think it matters though, as Wikipedia is not censored. I guess it depends on the image, too. My apologies if I was unhelpful. Acalamari 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks anyway. :) -WarthogDemon 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi Acalamari, and thanks for the welcome back. I really am quite busy so I don't know when I'll go on-wiki again. I have a favour to ask: Could you please semi-protect User:Kyoko/Header after I update it? Thanks, and thank you so much for helping deal with the rather appalling vandalism that has apparently been inflicted on my user/talk pages! --Kyoko 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome for the welcome back. :) Tell me when you've updated the header and I'll semi-protect it for you. I am very glad to see you're back. Acalamari 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's updated. Thanks again! --Kyoko 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your header is semi-protected. :) By the way, your user page is currently fully-protected by Riana. I had semi-protected it, but she changed it to full not long later. The protection will expire on 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC). Would you like me to change or extend the protection at all for you? Acalamari 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching my talk page

Hi. Thank you for reverting vandalism to user talk:Chris Chittleborough over the last few weeks. I do appreciate your work — the vandalism amuses me, but I still don't want it sitting there. Cheers, CWC 07:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'll still keep watching your pages. Acalamari 15:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compton G playa

Can u delete my account? - Compton G Playa 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't; accounts can't be deleted. Once an account has been created, it's permanent. Acalamari 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok,thanks anyway - Compton G Playa 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Acalamari 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise E technical stats

Are you the one that claimed that the Enterprise E could do warp 9.985 according to Okuda in the ships of the line book? I've looked at the book and can't find that statement? Can you point me to the correct page?

Sam Todd (worfbacca@gmail.com)

No I wasn't; I don't know what page it is on because I've never read the book. Acalamari 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't make edits like this. That edit is technically vandalism. Acalamari 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lise Simms and the others

I see you blocked 216.76.248.29 for 24 hours. It's pretty much a wast of time as they chnage IPs every day. I tried leaving messages on the various pages but they don't respond even when they use that IP again. I tried leaving a hidden message in the Lise Simms page but it makes no difference. I considered semi-protecting all the current pages they are editing but then they may move on to something else where the edits might get missed. By the way make sure to check the external links they add to the NNDB as so far I haven't found one that works. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, thanks for the message. I decided to block the IP because since, as you said, they never seem to respond to messages. The block seemed far more sensible than only reverting and warning them, for you said, they never respond to messages. I do agree with your decision to not semi-protect the pages; at least if we know what articles the person is editing, we won't have to worry about them going to somewhere else. As for the NNDB external links, thanks for telling me about that as well. Acalamari 15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this during the day and realised that you were right to block. If each IP is hit with an increasing block then eventually they may get the message. I see that you have blocked 216.76.248.29 and 216.76.248.100 both for 24 hours. The next 216.76.248.** should get a 48 hour block and so on until they respond. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they keep rotating between those IPs, with any luck, they should realize that their IPs keep getting blocked, and each block will get longer. I think Yamla also blocked a couple a few days ago as well, so those two IPs will also receive longer blocks next time they are edited with. I'll just keep an eye out for the next time they edit. Thanks. Acalamari 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Hello. I see you participate on RFPP. I need some help. I asked for semiprotection of List of Czech Jews and the redirect List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews twice already. /the first time there was not enough activity for it, mainly because I want to avoid edit warring with this person so I don't revert immediately. the second time I was told it was a content dispute. it isn't a content dispute. The reverts on that page are purposely made to appear like a content dispute when they are actually just trolling. The same person keeps coming back under many IPs to add a long list of Austrians to a list of Czechs which just looks like vandalism. I looked at the talk page of the former IP address this person was using (User talk:20.138.246.89) and it appears from their second request for unblock that they are an indefinitely banned user who started the unusual redirects in the first place and are now maintaining them (by duplicating the lists) post-ban using various IP proxies. the person probably has an account too. or how else would they watchlist the list from their IP addresses? so semiprotecting the article will probably make the banned person's new usernames come out as well. I tried contacting the other admins who rejected the page protection request, but they are not responding. please consider semiprotecting the pages. long term. thank you. Kazakhstan rocks 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is not necessary for the time being, as there is not enough disruption. However, if the edits are being done by a banned user, the banning policy states that you can revert them without discussion, as banned users are not permitted to edit. If the edits are not being done by a banned user, you should start a discussion on the talk page and encourage them to join the discussion. Acalamari 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False use of committed identity

I saw your name on User talk:Wikisteph888 to inform the user's failure of administership. But, the user is using a false committed identity on the user page. I know a bit about cryptographic algorithms, and hash functions and it is impossible have a hash string of 123456789, no matter what information you use to configure your string. This is very bothersome, because this user has requested to be administrator. People unfamiliar with hash functions, and cryptographic algorithms will believe that the identity has been confirmed. I think this borders on fraud. I don't know if Wikipedia has anything it its policies to address this kind of thing. Therefore my message on your talk page. Wikipedia has to keep an eye on these things, as the project is getting less and less reliable. Thanks in advance. Biomet 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better user to ask will be Alison regarding this, as she uses one herself. Try asking her; she'll be of far more help to you than I'll be. Acalamari 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual problem - I honestly have no idea what the solution is. One could ask him to remove the fake key from his page, I suppose? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the thing to do. One with experience with the identities should ask though. Acalamari 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I posted on Alison's talk page. I was reluctant to contact the user as I really don't know if it is against policy and do not want to accuse someone of something they think is harmless. I don't think it is harmless though, so wanted a more experienced user's opinion on how to go about this. Thanks. Biomet 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it is harmless. ANybody with even a simple understanding of the function will recognize it is either a.) a mistake, b.) a joke or c.) ignorance. Neither of which are against policy. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to this. :) Acalamari 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My personal guess is that the editor does not truly understand what it is and how it works. The test key 123456789 to me implies a test and no negative intent. If it was an actual malformed hexadecimal code with invalid characters i would be more likley to imply sinister intent. I dropped a note on their talk page offering to help fix it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, folks, it's no problem. It seems that Chris has the right grasp of the issue here as it seems to be just a new editor who's trying very hard to 'fit in'. Committed Identities on Wikipedia have a very clearly defined purpose and it's pretty obvious that this one is unlikely to be ever needed. Best thing would be to ask the editor in question and maybe offer a helping hand - Alison ☺ 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this, I believe, to be an appropriate response here - Alison ☺ 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay; I know that Chrislk02 had already posted a message on their talk page. I was unsure of how to go about this, which was why I asked Riana for help. I wasn't expecting this problem to happen. Acalamari 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing

That was amusing reverting back the changes those twelve year olds made to the dog page. --Zumspeed 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh; well, both those users have now been blocked for 24 hours. Acalamari 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy

Wowza, can't say I have had messages like that for me! Sorry, just came across it on a random vandal patrol. Jmlk 1 7 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just starting to RC patrol when I saw that diff. I thought it looked fimiliar and I realised I had one just like that[4]. Random! Spellcast 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting infobox

Hi Acalamari, I've seen that you list the name of the songwriters with commas in the infobox of the article Don't Stop the Music. Is this part of the Wikipedia project? (I realized I kept spacing them because it looked more organized, but if what you do is a requirement, I'll stop spacing them.) However, please keep the small tags on the references. Everytime I see a reference without small tags, the sentence in which it's in has one and a half spacing between the sentence above it. (I don't know if you see this, but it's happening on my computer with Internet Explorer 7.) Thank you. Bull Borgnine 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of infobox actually. In the song/single, musical artist, and album infoboxes, commas are normally used instead of breaks. I just fix the infoboxes when I see them. However, not all infoboxes use commas instead of breaks; there are infoboxes, such as infoboxes for starships, that use breaks and not commas. With the small tags and references, I don't think I'll be able to help you there; I use Internet Explorer 7 as well, but references and sentences seem fine to me. It may possibly be how something's set in your browser. Thanks for asking about infoboxes though. :) Acalamari 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW

What a rotten trick!! I was just about to do that! Joke, just kidding.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh; sorry! :) It wasn't fun though; the last three opposes were "strong opposes", and sadly, more "strong opposes" probably would have come in had I not closed the RfA. Acalamari 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Full agreement. As I say, I was just about to do it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small tagging references

Here's a still screenshot of the rare spacing between the lines. If that's normal to you, then I guess I'll keep using small tags. If it isn't then I should check my browser settings. But before I mess them up, I want to show you what I see, highlighted between the red brackets: File:Reference spacing.PNG
Bull Borgnine 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry, that's perfectly normal, now I see what you mean. :) It happens on my computer and browser too. You don't have to worry about using the small tags anymore, and there is nothing wrong with your computer or your browser. :) Acalamari 01:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it looks so much better with small tags!, oh well. Still, it's no against the rules, is it? Bull Borgnine 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anything that says the small tags can't be used, in all fairness. Acalamari 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocks

Huh. I'm not sure why I blocked for a year. I must have slipped when I was using the drop down menu. That thing is definitely making me lazy! Natalie 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's possible to press "one year" instead of "indefinite". It's too easy to do unfortunately! Acalamari 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move button

When I created an account on simple english it had a move button there, but not here. Is it that only certain users have that power to move or is it an error? --LifeloverElena 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account isn't four days old, so it hasn't reached the autoconfirmed level yet. When your account is four days old, you will be able to move pages, unless, of course, it's a page that's been protected so that only administrators can move them. Acalamari 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, Acalamari. --LifeloverElena 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) You'll also be able to edit semi-protected pages too when your account is four days old. Acalamari 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected? So like I can't edit now but when my account is four days old I can? --LifeloverElena 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit any page that has no form of protection. A semi-protected page is a page that's been protected to stop IPs and new users from editing it. When your account is four days old, you will be able to edit any semi-protected page. Fortunately, most articles aren't semi-protected so you shouldn't have to worry about anything. :) Acalamari 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NICOLE!

OMG You idiot! It took me an hour to wirte a full summary of the whatever u like music video and u just REVERT because its my name! and you also removed all my hard workj 2 split the pussycat dolls article! WHAT IS UR PROBLEM!