User talk:Acalamari/Archive D

I Hate Autoblocks...Who Got Me Autoblocked Now?

Try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Luna Santin; I can edit now. Acalamari 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, drat, Luna, you should have waited so we could have picked on a voiceless Acalamari for a while. KP Botany 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. :) I had been autoblocked for half an hour before Luna Santin unblocked me. Acalamari 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin Question.

If we're looking at things from a technical standpoint, then yes, I believe they could -- admins can unblock themselves. But, from a policy standpoint, doing so is widely frowned upon and can lead to an instant desysopping depending on circumstances. x.x – Luna Santin (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand if an admin unblocked themselves if another admin had blocked them; they'd be in big trouble; but I thought it would be okay to un-autoblock themselves. Obviously not. Acalamari 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, to be honest. ;) If I recall, it hasn't been specifically addressed anywhere; personally, I'd probably ask somebody else to take care of it for me, just to be on the safe side. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: All The Unblocks.

Glad to be of service, as always. Wish I could be a little quicker, sometimes, but I check about as often as life and work allow. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YT

No problem. People are running bots these days to remove YouTube links as well, hehe, apparently it's slightly controversial, :\. Matthew

Trolling

I am not a troll. Please choose your words more judiciously.

Thank you. 141.154.51.166 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have posted your message at the bottom of the talk page. Also, you wrote about "rumors", and Wikipedia is not the place for rumors. Your should have chosen better words in your message. For example, when you said that the girls of Prussian Blue (duo) "like it straight up the shit chute"; the words should have been "they like anal sex." Your message looked like trolling. Acalamari 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Thanks for reviewing me! I'll be sure to put to good use what you've taught me. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. Acalamari 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

And another.

They were from Nukleoptra. I have moved them to my barnstars subpage; and have thanked the user. Acalamari 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was-

No problem. :)Nukleoptra 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Please look at my page!

Partapdua2 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Acalamari 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

You are a dark lord of the sith? DOTA fanatic 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was your first edit? Um...why are you asking that? It's just a userbox. Acalamari 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just thinking "Ok..." so yeah... How do you create a userbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOTA fanatic (talk • contribs)

Go to Wikipedia: Userboxes. Acalamari 16:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU for Shoop da woop!!!11oneeleven

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I'm sure you started that RFCU in good faith. Some people get a bit testy sometimes. If in the future you are marginally concerned about a username, you can always ask a few RFCU regulars for their opinion before you start the process. I did that recently (see User talk:Flyguy649#Username query for their responses) and it seemed to work well. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you; none of my reports there have been in bad-faith, and I do get tired of users who imply that my reports there have been. However, I used to be a regular, but I decided to limit my presence there. In fact, that was the first name I've reported there for some time. Acalamari 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And I understand. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm borrowing the orange box at the top of your talk page for my own. I haven't had the energy to figure out how to do that on my own. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on RFCN

Yea, i felt like my response could have been a little harsh. In general, we are all suppose dto Assume Good Faith. By stating that something is not bad faith (which most of us assume or should be assuming it is not), most of us start looking around wondering who did assume bad faith? (Just the way it was stated seemed accusatory (which I know it is not)). I think that stating it is not in bad faith is a bit reduntant though (in my personal opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there was a time when I would report someone there at least once a day; so I try to be careful when reporting names there now. Acalamari 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um

I could go elsewhere to ask but I was just here so I thought I might ask: if you forget to log out when you turn off the computer what bad could happen?Nukleoptra 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bad happens, from my experience. Sometimes I haven't logged out; I just close my browser. Anyway, nothing bad should happen. It seems that Wikipedia logs out automatically whenever you close your browser down completely. Acalamari 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE-Adopt-a-user

Well, I just ask them if they need help with anything every once and awhile. I start out by directing them to the tutorial, it helps and suggestbot helps out a lot too. What ever they need help with, which isn't a lot for most of them, just help them along. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. It seems in adopt-a-user, I just help users why doing what I'm doing now: giving them help links and advice. Acalamari 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:An Edit

No, however those singles were unsoruced and not enough accurate information. --A Raider Like Indiana 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I just wanted to confirm you weren't reverting me. I thought that the information was wrong too. Acalamari 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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.

Trampton 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why, thank you; what a nice surprise. Acalamari 02:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicole Smith Unprotected

Hello Acalamari, I thought I should let you know that the Anna Nicole Smith article is now unprotected. It seems like a sufficient enough time has passed to allow all users access to editing it again. Hopefully any incoming vandalism will not be unmanageable. Keep up the great work and best of luck on your RFA :). I have a feeling it will pass with flying colors.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update; the article is in my watchlist, so I'll see any edits being done. Thanks also for your support. :) Acalamari 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the heads-up! None of this would have been possible without your help though. See ya around RC! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi there. Phew ... well, the kerfuffle has died down on my RFA now and it looks like yours is just starting.

I just wanted to say thank you so very much for nominating me in the first place. It was kinda shocking when it happened, as I was going through editor review at the time!! Anyways - I was honoured and delighted that both yourself and Ryan had such faith in me. I really, really appreciate all you've done over the past week or so, including your tireless updating of tallies, etc. Thank you so much! - Alison^☺

Thank you; and you're welcome; I'll move that award to my awards subpage. Acalamari 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re your response to my 'neutral' on your RFA

If the names were "probably acceptable", why would you have sent them to RFCN in the first place? {{UsernameConcern}} simply suggests to the user that "some users" may find their username objectionable, and they can avoid this going any further by voluntarily changing their name. This does happen, as most people are happy to follow guidelines once they are made aware of them. If they are sure they want that username, and/or believe it would be acceptable (ie, they disagree that the username would be objectionable), then it goes to RFCN. for further comment and input from the community. That's what an RFC is - a more formal way of assessing and resolving a potential issue when simple discussion has not been able to resolve it. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted them there in case they did violate policy. That step saying: Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight should be reworded, because some users will not interpret that the way it's meant; and even I only recently realized what it meant. It's not clear enough. That sentence should be improved; or else this problem will continue. Acalamari 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFCN, no point in this discussion happening in two places. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted there. :) Acalamari 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of barnstars

I see you are getting a lot of barnstars! If you get to many you can keep them all on your sub-page but only show some of them on you main page by using the <noinclude> tags. I have set mine up to only show the 3 at the bottom: User:HighInBC/Barnstars. But then, maybe you like them the way it is. Good luck with you RfA! ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that at some stage then. :) Acalamari 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism templates FYI

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I stared using the "uw-vandalism" ones. How on earth can you type the "subst:uw-vandalism" etc, so fast? Is there a monobook feature for them? Acalamari 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get my edits counted?

Hi Acalamari! How are you doing? Basking in the sun and feeling good having so many barnstars? I think you have really earned the barnstar for Random Acts of Kindness! I have two questions to my "godfather", - to you. I would like to have my edits counted. How is that done and where? My second question: Is there a way to bookmark useful sites on the user page? --Tellervo 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your edit counts go to Interiot's counter, and type in your name. As for useful sites, do you mean sites on, or off Wikipedia? Acalamari 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I mean sites on Wikipedia. --Tellervo 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's easy! :) It you wanted to link to Cicero, just type in [[Cicero]]. Bear in mind some pages have disambiguation links, so something like "Fergie" would have to be [[Fergie]], if you wanted the disambigatuon links, or [[Fergie (singer)]], if you wanted the singer. Does that help? Acalamari 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It works! Thank you! --Tellervo 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal attack

I'm not worried about my user page Acalamari. Have you ever seen? It's so junky, no one would ever visit, much less vandalize, although an editor recently stole some things from it for her own page because she thought they were so cool. I'll post the link to it some day, it's pretty funny. KP Botany 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it in good humor. :) Acalamari 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have seen it. I swear, one day, I'll make it purty. KP Botany 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Anne

For a full list of pornstar deletions, see WP:P*/D. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; but I saw it. Why are you telling me this? (No disrespect intended, just curious) Acalamari 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned he'd been nominating a lot. I figured I'd point you to a list of them. If you've already seen it, my bad. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no; you didn't make any mistakes. I was only curious. You were being helpful; there is no need to apologize for that. :) Acalamari 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a /Warnings subpage

In reply to: User talk:Ben#Question.

I noticed you edited User:Acalamari/Warning Removals. Why made you decide to visit it? I'm not bothered or anything. I'm just curious because the proposal was withdrawn sometime ago. :) Acalamari 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across it, thought I'd toss in a link at the very bottom to a compromise solution, a separate /Warnings subpage where stuff could be moved off the talkpage if one wanted the talkpage kept clean.

Not that it should really be necessary, because as long as the warner left a good edit summary, even just the name of the warning template, anyone can go through the talkpage history, spot the warning entries, and bring up the original postings with all details.

But for those who really don't want to make things harder for anyone, archiving them on a subpage is a nice way to show: "Hey, I'm not hiding anything, I just want my talkpage kept for actual talk, warnings are all kept over there."

Or if you need to keep clear and easily found records on a real troublemaker, a protected /Warnings subpage would preserve the warnings from deletion, while letting the user chat (or rant) on the talkpage to his heart's content -- something you can't do if the talkpage has to serve both purposes at the same time.

See User talk:Example/Warnings for a demo. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Acalamari 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, Acalamari, thank you for welcome! I read on your page you love Shakira: I love her too, and if you're interested, go to Italian article about her; I wrote it, and now it's a featured article on it.wiki!! However, I hope to improve my English so that I'll be able to contribute more on en.wiki too! Good night!!--Max 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help me with a revision?

Somebody, who thinks he is smarter than what he is in reality, has removed from the Cicero article the sections in "Early life" about Cicero's philosophical studies in his youth. What he/she/they do not realize is that Cicero's importance at present has much to do with his philosophical works. (I am going later to write about Cicero's own philosophical works, - if I ever get over all these reverts after reverts!?) My text about Cicero's studies in philosophy in his youth you can find in "Revision as of 10:01, 21 March 2007".Can you tell me how to add this text into the present article?? Or can you put these sections back into the article? Or should I ask the Help Desk? Greetings --Tellervo 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sympathetic answer, - I will ask somebody else! Do not worry, I will manage. --Tellervo 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my comments on your RfA

Hello, I'm glad to see that you aren't discouraged by my comments, or by the comments of those who aren't supporting your RfA. I hope that my comments have been helpful, or at least considerate, and I'm glad to see that you are treating this RfA as a learning experience, no matter how it turns out. Best wishes, --Kyoko

I thank you for understanding. :) Acalamari 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that humour in edit summaries doesn't always come through, as I've told another person recently. I'm not singling you out, but how effective humour is depends on a lot of factors, including how awake the reader is.

Since I'm here, I also want to say that it's a sign of maturity on your part to treat your RfA as a large scale editor review of sorts. If this RfA doesn't end up succeeding, please address the various concerns and consider running again in the future. --Kyoko

Indeed; it's best to use neutral edit summaries. As for the issues on my RfA; instead of waiting until the RfA ends to begin addressing them; I'm working on them now. I think it's best to deal with them the moment they are brought up on the RfA as opposed to waiting until the end. Acalamari 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

I found quite a bit of vandalism, but I can't find the warning templates to put on the vandals' talk pages. Do you know where these templates are located? A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.39.181.168

24.39.181.168 has vandalised again, after someone gave 24.39.181.168 a last warning. Could you block him? A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's already been blocked for 48 hours Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50? Yargh!

How do I miss all these? It's like people wait until I stop editing and they can reasonably assume I'm off line. Thanks for keeping an eye out for me! Natalie 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I decided to watch your pages round about the time you became an administrator. I figured that you good do with an extra user watching your back. It also seems you also earned yourself what Persian Poet Gal calls a "spoofer"; it's when someone uses your name in their own. My spoofer sucks compared to Persian Poet Gal's spoofers. Acalamari 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61... I guess that means I'm doing something right. Natalie 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Twain

Thank you for your clean-up on the Shania Twain page. Much appreciated. --Renrenren 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Acalamari 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AN/I

What exactly do you imagine you'll be resolving? Chris conveniently expunged all discussion of his questionable role in the matter from his own talk page through his move-delete, and blanked the user's talk page, hiding any critical comments from anyone to see. Thus, there's little point in a months' old issue being brought back up. --Leflyman^Talk 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:So...you're saying that there's little point in bringing a month's old issue back up. If that's the case, why even bring it up? As I said, I'm not bothered by the fact you opposed me; that's a non-issue. Acalamari 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you took my comments at your RfA as personal -- they were intended to point out a tendency towards over-reaction, which you may acknowledge can be problematic in an admin. I definitely see you an up-and-coming editor, who just needs a bit more seasoning and experience before aiming for adminship. Best wishes, --Leflyman^Talk 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I was not offended by anything you said on the RfA. After all, it's just an RfA. I just wanted to avoid getting into another Krune mess, that's all. I accept your apology, but I want to say that you were not the one in the wrong: I was. :) Acalamari 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship nomination

On this occasion, your nomination for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, more users supported your nomination than opposed it, and many of those opposing are simply keen to see more of your work! Warofdreams talk 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my RfA; I appreciate that. I don't think I did too badly; after all, 40/28/14 and 59% support isn't terrible. I will continue to edit Wikipedia; but I will make sure I listen to the opposers reasons. Acalamari 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlucky Acalamari, you'll certainly get there in the future, and you've certainly taken a very active step in sorting those oppose votes out, well done, and keep it up Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't make it this time. Like Ryan says, 59% is not bad at all. Read all the comments through and you can bet that in a few short weeks/months, you can have another go & will be sure to make it. You certainly can be guaranteed my support. {{hugs}} ya - Alison^☺ 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be glad it wasent a snowball! you had alot of supporters. In a few months I would be glad to nominate you, I am sure there are others who would as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicts!) Thank you all of you for your support, Ryan, Alison, and Chris. Anyway, the opposes were't too terrible; a lot of those events are easily avoidable. Thank you. Yes, I doubt I'll be nominating myself again; I'll let someone else nominate me; and I did say in my RfA that self-nominations are frowned upon; but hey, I did pretty well. Acalamari 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I join those who are sorry this RfA didn't succeed, but I am sure that as you give attention to the concerns expressed, you will be even more ready for adminship by the time the next nomination rolls around. Perhaps I will even be the nominator. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Newyorkbrad; as I said, my RfA wasn't that bad. A lot of the opposition was to do with stuff I can easily avoid; and with the thicker skin issue, I think after that RfA, nothing the vandals could say would really affect me. Thank you for your support. Acalamari 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCrush

Hey, how come you spend so much time counting all the vandalism to Natalie Erin's user page, and ferociously guarding it like a knight in white armor? Sounds like someone is in love! Owner of boats 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watch her user and talk pages. :) If she continues to get vandalism at the rate she does, I'm likely to do more edit to her user page than my own! :) Acalamari 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the message was left by a vandal i indef blocked for disruptive page moves to User:Natalie Erin, and other vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I just found that out when I saw that the user had been blocked indefinitely. According to the vandals, I have a WikiCrush on Persian Poet Gal, and now Natalie Erin. I hope Persian Poet Gal and Natalie Erin won't be jealous of each other! :) Acalamari 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

You said: "First of all, I want to say that I just reverted vandalism from your user page; and from the sandbox, as the kind user who vandalized your user page then attacked you in the sandbox. Secondly, I want to thank you for your support in my RfA. Your support was a nice surprise, and your advice was very helpful to me. Thank you."

It shouldn't have been a surprise, I think you are a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. :) Thanks for monitoring my user page and reverting the vandalism. --Yamla 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because

^{Award moved to my awards subpage.}

Why thank you; I'll move that to my awards. :) Acalamari 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

No problem, if you keep up the good work you've been doing you'll certainly have my support if you decide to go up for RfA again, which I hope you will (-:! Matthew 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I have added it to my collection. :) Cheers, Sarah 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the ladies' man I see

You seem to have given our friendly neighbourhood vandals a new hobby: [1]. :-) WjBscribe 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hound, Acalamari. Just wait until Natalie Erin and Persian Poet Gal find out! LOL!! - Alison^☺
- Normally users who have been through an RfA get vandalism if the RfA is successful. :) I wonder if this is the same person who created users like User: Yamla has a crush on Kate McAuliffe. Acalamari 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{Award moved} -- Feel free to revert this ;) A Train^talk 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm going to move it to my awards subpage. :) This has to be the funniest vandalism ever. Acalamari 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Dang, you're still much more popular than I am. Don't avoid all the situations, evaluate people's comments and decide what you think you should do to become a better Wikipedia editor and potential administrator--not everyone who criticizes you is always right. Frankly, I think you'd be wasted as an admin, but you do edit in areas where there are few admins, but high activity, and you could contribute well as an admin, I have no doubt. If you become an administrator I will probably have to find someone else to dump those little obscure intellectual biographies on, though, and that will irritate me, as I've cut back, enough that finding new ~~victims~~, er editors, will be difficult. I personally think being a great editor is a step up from being an admin, and you are the former, imo. KP Botany 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, KP Botany, you can still bring those biographies to me; I'll help you. :) If I became an admin, I shouldn't stop helping you, or any other user. I haven't forgotten about Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, or LAX (group). I will still be willing to help, no matter what. Anyway, I'm still likely to bring an article or two to you. :) Acalamari 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get any time there are some sources listed on the discussion page of Silas Kopf. His daughter started the article, then hesitated for COI reasons. The article came up for AfD, but he's rather a spectacularly well-known craftsman among those who care about wood, so the article stayed. Meanwhile I begged his daughter to provide a photograph--rather rare acquisition for a modern crafstman, as they want to protect their work from being knocked-off. However, the daughter did provide Wikipedia with an excellent photograph of a unique piece. I really don't have much time to work on anything Wikipedia as I'm working on my art right now, but this one came up on my watchlist courtesy of a BLP bot. If you get time to add anything, please do. KP Botany 04:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs

Thanks for your message, Acalamari. I didn't think you were offended but I don't think it would make you biased if you were offended. My own RfA was relatively painless (160/4/1) but it was still a pretty rugged experience and I think it would be quite natural to feel hurt when they don't succeed. As far as the age thing goes, I personally don't agree with using age as a criteria for assessing someone for adminship but I know that other people think it is important that admins be of a certain minimum age. I think it's a rather silly criteria myself since anyone can say they are whatever they want and we would have no clue if a 14-year-old, for example, claimed they were 30. I don't like using arbitrary criteria like age, gender, education, etc for evaluating candidates (believe it or not, I have seen someone opposed for being female), however, I feel that people participating in good faith should feel free to apply whatever admin criteria they feel is appropriate. I didn't agree with that editor's oppose rationale, but I wasn't upset or unimpressed or whatever. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Cheers, Sarah 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did great on your own RfA: WP:100! As for the age criteria, I disagree with it; not because of my age, but because it would mean de-sysopping a load of good admins, like Persian Poet Gal and Majorly; who have done a great job as administrators. Having their administrative tools removed simply because they are not old enough would be a huge loss. Acalamari 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, PPG is a teeny bopper also? Maybe admins SHOULD be teenagers, rather than teenagers not allowed to be admins. KP Botany 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXL (band)

If you get a chance, would you see if you can responsibly edit this article with the sources listed and the Eurovision Song Contest web link?[2] Also the article about the band's song 100% Te Ljubam should be merged into the band's article page. I see not rush on this, even though the XXL article is up for deletion. KP Botany 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do some work on it. I just did a few edits on Silas Kopf for you. That's quite an interesting article. Acalamari 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes, Frimpong-Boateng is looking good. Thanks, I really respect immigrants who return to doing for their own, rather than taking what the West has to offer, and the West has a lot to offer a talented cardiac surgeon compared to Africa. Kopf is fascinating to me, as he's such a lone wolf, working in a craft that most Americans know very little about, but that adds so much beauty to a piece of furniture. KP Botany 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frimpong-Boateng, from what I've read, is a very interesting, as well as educated, person. I'm glad you pointed out the article about him. It's got quite a lot of information in it already. As for XXL (band), I'll see what happens with the AfD and the merge. If it survives, and the merge is successful...excellent. If not...at least I would have got to do a couple of edits to the article. :) Acalamari 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unblocking Self.

Hmm. I guess if you're testing blocks, and manage to autoblock yourself, it's no issue. It's hard to see anybody making a big deal out of it, anyway. ;) Although test-blocking is usually discouraged on shared IPs for just that reason, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious. Thanks. :) Acalamari 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your ultimate support in my recent RfA. I accept your apology without reservation or hesitation; you said what you thought was right, and this is all that can be expected of any wikipedian. I am sorry that it was felt that you were not yet quite ready for the mop and bucket; I look forward to supporting your next application. Please notify me when you do apply - doing so will, in the light of this request, not be seen as canvassing.--Anthony.bradbury 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad there's no hard feelings. Good luck! Acalamari 16:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a shame. I often check the RfA's so next time I see you there, I'll support. Acalamari 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browser cache clearing

Hi - thanks for your interesting question. I've never experienced any need to clear my cache when my rights have been changed - although I expect that returning to a previously viewed page might require a refresh. As the rights are held in a Wikipedia database, any pages newly served from Wikipedia should correctly display your new rights. Warofdreams talk 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I was interested to know, in case it did require cache clearing. I know a lot of other things do, and I wasn't sure if rights-changing also required it. Thanks! :) Acalamari 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Acalamari, sorry about the outcome of your RfA, hang in there, glad to see you are handling what had to be a dissappointing situation in such a mature and graceful way. Please take the suggestions offered to heart and not see them as criticism but in a constructive way (which you seem to be doing, props!). IMHO I would adivise that you continue with the good works & positive intentions for a few more months and I think that many of those who opposed this go-round will support the next time. Good luck! Wikidenizen 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least, as Warofdreams and Chrislk02 both pointed out; I had more support !votes than opposes, and the RfA wasn't overpowered with opposes. To be honest, I was expecting a lot of the supports to change to neutrals and opposes, but amazingly, only one of them did. Acalamari 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Revert.

You're very welcome. Glad I could help :-) Will (aka Wimt) 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 1/2

How do you get vandalized 1/2 a time? I'd have thought that was a whole-number function. Meanwhile, I'm nowhere near that number. I'll have to try harder. To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, I can't get any disrespect. :) Wahkeenah 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1/2 times comes from when a user put a message on my user page as opposed to my talk page. It wasn't really vandalism, so I included it as a "1/2" instead. :) It seemed better to list it as that than to list is as a full vandalism edit. Acalamari 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to do it again just to even up the numbers :) - Alison^☺ 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do. :) I originally counted it as a full vandalism edit, but I looked it over and thought otherwise. Acalamari 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did it the right way. When they vandalize through blundering instead of purposeful maliciousness, they only deserve partial credit. :) Wahkeenah 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Acalamari 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello, Acalamari. Thanks for your comments! A few good words can go a long way. That's too bad that you didn't pass your RfA, but it seems that the main problem was the "time factor." Thanks again. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]