User talk:Acalamari/Archive H

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm, I'm inviting wiki-members who have edit history contribuitions on R&B or Soul articles throughout wikipedia, sorry if I made any inconvenience.

Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to apologize. By the fact you decided to ask me about joining obviously means you have seen my work. :) Thanks for asking about this.

As for joining, I'm not saying no. Maybe I'll join at a later date instead. Acalamari 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like also if you could give me any tips on how to make it a successful project, not related within the scoupe, but related to the members issue. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of tips do you want regarding the members? Acalamari 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About increasing the project's members. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about WikiProjects, but I'll give you this advice. You've invited a group of people to join the WikiProject. I suggest you stop sending out invites (for the moment), and give all those people a week or so to get back to you; then invite some more people who have edited pages within the scope of the WikiProject. Concentrate on building the influence of the WikiProject (which you seem to be doing already by adding articles to its scope). Hopefully, the WikiProject will be more successful, gain recognition, and more people will join it. As I said, I don't know much about WikiProjects, but if you just work hard to revive the project, there is no reason for it to start dying again. You've managed to get a couple of people to join it already (I think; I may be wrong), which is a good thing. Acalamari 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that really helped me a lot, to avoid many (wrong) things that I'd do and to improve what I'm doing. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Seriously though, I hope your attempt to revive the WikiProject is a success. The articles you've listed there need to be improved; and I myself have tried to fix them. Your WikiProject should be able to do a better job than me. Good luck! Acalamari 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi, I added a line to an entry and you accused me of "vandalism"... I emailed you and haven't received a response. My addition was not vandalism. It fits within the guidelines on the welcome page. Please respond via email. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ubertar (talk • contribs).

I don't need to respond via E-mail for this: your edits came across as vandalism, but if you say they weren't, then I'll believe you. However, the information you added is unsourced, and comes across as point of view and original research. Also, the information you added about Lewis Libby isn't even needed in the article about Paris Hilton. Acalamari 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the information I added is "needed" or not is subjective. It could be argued that no one needs any information related to Hilton. I do think it's relevant. As I said on Exploding Boy's page:

"The Hilton and Libby cases are very much related. Both events occurred within a short period of time and are high profile cases. There was a huge uproar over Paris' supposed special treatment-- people were upset that she was being treated as "above the law". Libby was convicted of felony counts of obstruction of justice and perjury, yet was given special treatment and treated as "above the law". For this to occur right after the controversy about Hilton is ironic, and notable. I only added a single line. It was a statement of fact, and while you may not personally see the relevance, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't think my addition should be deleted just because you disagree over its relevance. As these issues fade, so will the relevance of that line, so why not compromise and leave it up for a week or two, then take it down." Also, according to your site, Hilton requested a pardon from Gov. Schwarzenegger, but did not receive one. Libby hasn't yet received a Presidential pardon, but his sentence was commuted to zero time. These cases are highly related-- they both involve the question of whether famous and powerful people are above the law. To say anything more would be going into opinion, so I'll stop there.

As for it being unsourced, I would be happy to add any number of sources: the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. This information is common knowledge to anyone who has read a newspaper or watched a news program since yesterday. What I posted were facts, to make a comparison. You may infer a point of view from that, but I did not post any opinions, only facts: 1. Hilton served more jail time than Libby; 2. Libby was convicted of felonies. Ubertar 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, how is it appropriate to the article? Paris Hilton and Lewis Libby have nothing to do with each other. It's a coincidence that the recent events happened when they did. Yes, there might be sources for this, but how is it relevant? Also, saying that this event is "ironic" is a POV statement. Acalamari 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your RfA

Read my reply :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Acalamari, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Good luck with yours (not that you need it!) and happy editing, matt br 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the support! As for mine, thanks for the good luck! :) Acalamari 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congradulations on becoming an admin and reaching WP:100! **Jreferee** ^(Talk) 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, let me be the first to congratulate you on your well deserve mop and flamethrower, and for making it into Wikipedia history! :) Your patience, your will to learn from any past mistakes, your hard work and positive attitude have finally been lauded. Keep up the excellent work, now with the help of those buttons up there, and above everything, remain the way you are! We love you A! :) Phaedriel - 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Acalamari..Good Job

...--Comet styles 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on passing and making WP:100! As soon as I saw the page last week I knew you would accomplish both of these, somehow. Just be careful with that flamethrower now... - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Acalamari for your successful RfA. You've earned it. P3net 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Have fun with the mop! J-stan ^Talk 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I know you'll do well. Darth Griz98 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA result

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing my rights, Redux, it's very much appreciated. :) Acalamari 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey A!! I'm so delighted that you passed your RfA, and so successfully as well. Looking forward to seeing you around the backlogs ;) Take good care! ~ Riana ⁂ 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and well deserved. You know where I am if you need help. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've deleted two pages already! Acalamari 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop by and congratulate you too! It was long overdue. :-) Will (aka Wimt) 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just realized now that I was the last voter on both. Better late then never though, congrats. Wizardman 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I was always confident. Ask me if you need advice, though you may lnow more than I do.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicrush

Dude, I think Phaedriel is Wiki-in to you. J-stan ^Talk 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? :) Acalamari 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me apologize. I should have read the "so you've noticed too?" section. I was just making an observation that Phaedriel has posted some gifts that seem a bit, well, affectionate (including signing them "Love, Phaedriel". Really, it's none of my business. I'm sorry. J-stan ^Talk 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize for being humorous. :) Acalamari 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, that made me smile too, considering recent events ;) Anyway, dear Stan, that's just the way I am, not just with A, but with everyone else too. Oh, and one more thing: I'm not really fond of flirting with underaged friends, not even someone as wonderful as Acalamari! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get away from my girl Acalamari! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! :) Acalamari 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! No ones mad at me!!!! J-stan ^Talk 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, J-stan, your post made me sad because it made me realize that I am not in the group of those who have received a Wiki message of love from Phaedriel. Please, all of you, advert your eyes so you do not watch me sulk away in my sadness and shame. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) Acalamari 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my First message from Phaedriel is the above reply to my comment. J-stan ^Talk 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thank you. You fully deserve the admin status just awarded to you, and I am both happy and proud to have been your nominator. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on your unsurprisingly successful RfA! :-) Apparently somebody above has already given you a mop and bucket. Must be Hong Kong made copies, as these are the original mop and bucket for you! :-) Festive regards, Hús ö nd 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

Congrats on your Administratorship and Happy 4th of July. ;) Quasy Boy 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rodriguez and other small biographies

You're welcome. I do appreciate that you also saw, right from the start, the value in these small biographies, and of doing a bit of work to really make them shine, or enough research to boot them with confidence at times. I'll still keep sending the important ones your way. KP Botany 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

...on being given the "mop and bucket."

So here's a task for someone better than me: Amy Bruckner's article. Someone keeps re-adding a bad NNDB link (it leads to 404 Not Found), and no one can agree on her birthday. A friend of mine changed it to 1991 and then emailed me, next someone changed it back. I'm not willing to start an edit war, but I thought I'd ask your advice on how to proceed. (Reverting vandalism is MUCH easier...)

Rockerbaby 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congratulations! I've deleted a few pages already. :) Anyway, with Amy Bruckner, I've removed the NNDB link again. With her birthday, all you need to do is find one (or if you want, two reliable sources), and then go the talk page explain your what you've done. With the edit war, you don't need to worry about that at the moment; your edits have taken place over a few days, not 24 hours (see WP:3RR, unless you've seen it already). There is a similar situation on Asia Nitollano where revert wars over her birthdate are common (unfortunately, there are no sources for her birthdate either). If you have a reliable source or two for Amy Bruckner's birthday, and another user reverts you, they are going against what the sources say and not you. If you need any more advice, please let me know. Acalamari 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your words of wisdom, done. Sources were TV.com and IMdb. If those sources are not reliable enough, I am willing to keep looking. (I checked Amy's official site, and it did not list her birthdate.) Thanks again! Rockerbaby 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the article's talk page. Acalamari 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As did I... i found a Disney press release, and <ref>'d it into place. Thank you (again) for your help. Rockerbaby 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another congrats!

Congratulations! See you've already been using the tools well [1]... well deserved! Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I went to CAT:CSD not too long after getting the tools. :) Acalamari 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and a strange edit

Would you take a look with your newfound powers at User talk:67.150.87.146? I think somebody copied a template, because Can't sleep, clown will eat me isn't active right now, and the edit shows the IP did it. Acroterion _(talk) 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, seems to have been resolved, and seems legitimate. I suppose if I'd ever been blocked I'd understand the process better. Acroterion _(talk) 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana sorted it out. Not sure what that IP was trying to do there. Acalamari 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on adminship!

Now get out there and fix everything! - eo 14:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will! :) Acalamari 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your recent support on my RFA. I did not make it through, but I'll give it another try a few months down the road. Also, congrats on your own recent success! Hiberniantears 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're welcome for the support. Don't let the unsuccess of the RfA get to you. Just improve yourself as an editor, and your next RfA should be successful. Good luck! :) Thanks for your congratulations too. Acalamari 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats on the new rights, Acalamari! Prepare for a world of more work and half the respect!! :-) —« ANIMUM » 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Acalamari 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough congrats messages, so here's another

~*~*~*~ Congratulations! ~*~*~*~

21:10, 4 July 2007 Redux (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Acalamari from (none) to sysop (Successful RfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Acalamari_2))

Well and truly deserved! To celebrate this occasion, I made something for you :) Extraordinary Machine 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Funny image! :) Acalamari 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beaten to the draw?

We always race for these things - you'll find out. Timing is everything!!--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that way. :) I've only done one block so far, though I've done a load of deletions. Acalamari 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just hover over WP:AIV and wait for them to come in. You wont wait long. A question - in WP:UAA, are you clear on the hardblock/softblock differentiation? Not being rude - I had to have it explained to me.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but hardblocks prevent the user from creating a new account and editing from their IP, while softblocks don't do that. Good-faithed but inappropraite usernames should be softblocked while blatant bad-faithed usernamed should be hardblocked? Am I correct on both accounts? Acalamari 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I apologise profoundly for ever doubting you in the slightest! I said (above) you might know more than I do, and I was not joking. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I got it from Ryan. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Lengthy Usernames

Hello, Acalamari. Lucasbfr has started a discussion at WT:UAA#Extremely_lengthy_usernames to try to find a limit on when a username becomes obviously too lengthy. Seeing as how I've seen you participating at WP:UAA, I thought you might want to drop by. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, E ddie 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. :) Acalamari 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. E ddie 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Your help

Sure, what's up? ~ Riana ⁂ 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing :) And I find it very hard to believe that a logo is multilicensed under Creative Commons and the GFDL, so that's nuked now. Good work! ~ Riana ⁂ 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protections

any chance you can semi protect my userpage for 5 days - I want to make sure you understand how to do it! (That's not me trying to say your useless - I just know how it was when I first became an admin, and I didn't have a clue what to do). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it then. :) Acalamari 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you've got it - now unprotect it ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about it - I'd like to have move protection on indefinately.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unprotect next? Acalamari 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed with flying colours - well done! I know it's hard at first, but you'll get the hang of it. Have you blocked anyone yet? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two usernames. I just asked Riana a few minutes ago about a user I had blocked for their username, as their name was the name of a website (see the discussion on her talk page). Riana said I did the correct actions with that. Acalamari 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. There should be a short-course training school for new admins on how to use the new tools. Are you interested in setting one up? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good; unless one already exists and I've never heard about it. It would help new administrators get more familar with the tools. Acalamari 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:vandal to mrbsball825

I am mrbsball825 i just forgot to log in gosh. You guys are over protective.

My apologies; I reverted the IP because I thought it was a vandal vandalizing your user page. Sorry about that. Acalamari 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Congrats :) Can't believe I'm 3 days late... now go ~~pwn~~ er, clear some backlogs! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One of the things I said I would clear would be CAT:TEMP, and most of my administrator work has been there so far. Acalamari 03:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! :)

Any time, sweetie! Hope you've had a wonderful weekend :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. :) By the way, I'll get around to replying to your E-mail soon. Sorry about the late response to you. Acalamari 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R's RfA

No problems and don't feel bad about being sucked in. I actually wrote out a "age doesn't matter" reply myself and just before I posted it, I thought I should check him out as I couldn't remember seeing his name around before. I think R probably upset him on some AFD or something, but I couldn't find anywhere they had both edited. But I have a vague memory of there being a troll with socks reported on ANI who had a thing about removing "the late" from articles, which this guy has also been doing eg. "The township of Beerwah is located in this region, a popular tourist destination, being home to the late Steve Irwin's, Australia Zoo."[2] and I'm just wondering if this account is a sock, but I can't find the ANI report. I just gave him a general final warning for his previous crap, so maybe we should just keep an eye on him...Cheers, Sarah 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel bad; I just wished I paid more attention to his contributions. I didn't want to come across as uncivil on that RfA when responding. I couldn't find an AN/I report, but I did find this, if that's any use. Thanks again. Acalamari 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

No worries, Acalamari. There are a small number of users assuming bad faith, that's all. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. :) Acalamari 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana on WP:100

I was wondering how long it'd be before I was added on there, y'know. You did it much faster than I expected anyone to! --Deskana (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh; I went to your RfB and saw that you had made it to WP:100! I checked that page, saw that no one had added you there, and did it myself. :) Acalamari 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have to wait and see if I make it to Wikipedia:List of bureaucrats :-p --Deskana (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't say anything now; I don't want to jinx it! :) Acalamari 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that

yah, so im sorry about that, it seemed weird..... haha how do i make that new message thing go away? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.213.51 (talk)

The best thing you can do is to create an account. For some reason, there's a bug with IP addresses where the "you have new messages" bar keeps coming up after you've viewed the message. With an actual account, once you click on the orange bar, it goes away until someone leaves a message on your talk page again. Acalamari 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> ok....thanks, will that mean that everyone will have to look that message who shares the IP address?

Yes, for a while. I don't know for how long though. It'll keep coming up every now and then, but I don't know when it'll stop. Acalamari 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very annoying. But thank you...is there a way you can just delete them?

You can blank the messages, but the "you have new messages" bar will remain I think. The best way is to start an account, but that's entirely up to you. Acalamari 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

Thank you, Acalamari, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Hús ö nd 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado, Acalamari, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Also thank you for your kind words. :-) Hús ö nd 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, you're welcome! I do hope you run again in the future; I look forward to supporting it! :) Acalamari 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My new user name

I'm glad you like my name. Also thank you for removing my user name from that list as I didn't know how to remove it. I decided that I would help fight vandalism with the help of twinkle during my summer holidays as I haven't much else to do. I see that it is a problem (after monitoring recent changes, warning and reporting vandals for about four days). Even the vandals targeted my userpage for only one day oddly enough. Anyway thank you for the compliments and the smiley face :D Angel Of Sadness 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the compliments! You're also welcome for me removing your talk page from that category. All I had to do was view Phaedriel's text, see the category, and remove it (view what I did here). Maybe the vandals won't target you as much now; sometimes a strong-sounding username lessens user/user talk vandalism. :) Acalamari 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so deleting that thing isn't that hard. I'll have to remember that. I know even when I was fighting vandalism some vandal (who was blanking pages and saying horrible things on other people's userpages) said and I quote "Sadly, HappiestCamper is not a happy camper. He does not allow people to express their opinion, but rather calls it "vandalism." This should not be. Americans have a right to free speech." Obviously I thought it was hilarious they thought that I was a "he". But I think my new user name really matches what I want to do here on Wikipedia. Angel Of Sadness 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; obviously they didn't read your userpage properly. :) Acalamari 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that they went through the trouble of complaining without reading my user page. Anyway their little rant on my talk page got them blocked for a day so by now they won't be able to find me because of my new user name. :-D Angel Of Sadness 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes vandals read the content of my user page, and vandalize accordingly: it depends. Anyway, I've blocked a couple of users you've reported to AIV. I hope you continue to do what you're doing. :) Acalamari 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will definately keep watching out for vandalism as it is a problem here at wikipedia. Hopefully one day wikipedia will be vandalism free but that's only a dream. I'll probably talk to you tomorrow as it's my bedtime now :( Goodnight Angel Of Sadness 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bruckner, again

Since our conversation, and my work on the article, no one has changed the birthdate again. :) However, I have reverted the NNDB link three times already, over the past few days. (It still leads to a 404.) The editors that keep re-adding the link are IP addresses. Is this something an administrator should take care of, or should I just keep removing the dead link? Thanks (Again!) Rockerbaby 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is keep removing the link, and warn the person re-adding with {{subst:uw-spam1|Amy Bruckner}}, and if they keep adding it, advance from {{subst:uw-spam1|Amy Bruckner}} to {{subst:uw-spam4|Amy Bruckner}} every time they add it. I could semi-protect the page, but that would be misuse of my administrator abilites, as I'm only semi-protecting the page over a minor issue. Hope that helps! Acalamari 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (again). I guess you could say I'm a little spoiled to protecting things for no reason at all - I run several MediaWiki based sites, and am the only one with admin rights - so I forget that on Wikipedia there's a bunch of policies to follow. I'll use the warning templates on their talk pages (I will have done so with uw-spam1 by the time you read this) and hopefully it helps a little. Take Care, Rockerbaby 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfX

Fastest edit in the west ;) Congrats on becoming an admin recently, by the way. Andre (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; thanks for the congratulations. :) I made sure not to add myself to WP:100 when my RfA reached that number; figured it was best to let someone else do it for me. Acalamari 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi Acalamari, I came here to talk about a very terrible action, it seems that an admin deleted Wikipedia:Sandbox/World's Longest Poem and all its subpages, totalizing a loss of almost 134k editions by many wiki and non-wiki users. User:CBM did it alleging Housekeeping, but going further, such action could never be applied to this WikiProject,

Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page
histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a
disambiguation page that only points to a single article.

This is nor an wikipedia-article (it is a subject of a WikiProject), neither was being subject of controversial page moves and hadn't any redirecting or disambiguation pages.

What will happen??? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "what will happen". All that happened was that CBM deleted a load of unnecessary sandbox subpages. With the WikiProject, what WikiProject are you referring to? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Acalamari 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Acalamari, but I'm being very nervous about this and couldn't say a word, sorry if this even sounded rude, I meant no harm, but this page was related to WikiProject Poetry and The Departament of Fun, this page had a solid objective, to beat off Mahabharata, the current World's Longest Poem, User:CBM deleted the page with the pretext of "pages that had not been edited recently", including the main page, but this page was daily update, with daily basis on how many verses and edits it had. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize; you weren't being rude. However, there's not much I can do; I could undelete the pages, but that would be wheel warring, and that could lead to administrative trouble. The best you can do is talk to the deleting administrator about it. Acalamari 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the source code of each page? I'd create it on the specific and correct page. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source code? As in the text? Not sure if I'm supposed to; I'd probably still be going against another administrator's actions. Acalamari 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand, thanks, and sorry for any inconveniences. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for this. :) Acalamari 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop music WikiProject

I've made a proposal for a WikiProject Pop music. I'm trying to see if there's enough interest to make it somewhat feasible to co-ordinate efforts, so I though you might be interested. 17Drew 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd still be helpful. The main purpose of a project like this would simply be to co-ordinate efforts for the articles. It'd be good to have users who can help out with peer reviews and copy-editing or deal with the vandalism that seems to happen to pop articles (sales and chart position inflation, gossip/rumors about future releases). 17Drew 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the support and the kind words! I am sure you'll do well as a bureaucrat. Acalamari 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

how do i gain Twinkle? Real Compton G 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi Acalamari. I just resonded to a helpme request and I noted that Real Compton G (talk · contribs) was created during the time you had Compton G playa (talk · contribs) blocked and that the latter edited the formers new article diff. This may have been a block evasion due to ignorance, and there doesn't seem to be any further policy violations coming from either of them, but I thought you should know. Cheers—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My error, the second account was created eighty-one minutes before the block was placed and no policy violations from either since your block. I shall give the user in question a link to read about the policy on multiple accounts. Sorry for the error. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[3]] (Felsommerfeld 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what you want me or all the other users you've contacted to do there. Acalamari 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I cannot check your IPs; I am not a checkuser, and am not legally allowed to be one anyway. I'm an administrator, not a checkuser. Also, checkusers can not be performed on a user who asks for one to be performed on them. I don't know what's going on anyway with that page. Maybe you should try Wikipedia: Dispute resolution; that'll be more helpful than me. Acalamari 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Compton G playa

i just thought i should let u kno tht i have 2 accounts tht i am using,"Compton G playa" and "Real Compton G".i thought i should tell u this just incase there is a bit of a mix up

Undeletion request

Hi. You recently deleted our article about the only website to play a key role in a change of government in a G7 country on the grounds that it is not notable. I strongly disagree with your action. In fact, since the article made multiple cited claims to notability, I regard that deletion as a serious mistake. A contemporary general encyclopedia needs to cover blogs; any decent coverage of blogs has to include Captain's Quarters. Fortunately, the deletion can easily be corrected by undeleting the article. Would you do that, please? (If you still want it deleted, please try an AfD instead.)

You can reply here; I'm watching this page. CWC 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it had been set as a candidate for speedy deletion. I did view the page before deletion, and it's possible, now that I've looked at the page again, that it was a bad-faith nomination for deletion. I didn't "want" the page deleted at all, and I will restore the page if you wish. However, I do hope you ready to do work on it immediately; otherwise, it could be AfD'd or someone else could have it set for speedy deletion, which means another administrator would delete it instead of me. Acalamari 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was it set as a candidate for speedy deletion? I checked my watchlist at least once a day around that time (more like ten times a day, truth be told ...) and never saw any such notice.

Yes, I do want it restored, please. If it is AfD'd, I can easily show that it is clearly notable. If our speedy deletion process can apply to that that article, then there is something very, very wrong with that process. This is an alarming situation.

Thanks in advance for the undeletion. CWC 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted; you will see the edit that nominated it for speedy deletion. Acalamari 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out an anon at a dynamic IP address, 69.218.227.214, slapped {{db-bio}} on a bunch of articles, mostly blogs. Hmm. That's not something a new editor would know about. But in the end, all the articles have been retained. Thanks again. CWC 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for the note, thanks for your support and thanks for that handy little icon! -- But|seriously|folks 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; you're welcome for the support! You're welcome for the {{administrator}} tag too! :) Acalamari 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Roman Catholic Church

I see from WP:RPP that you are already aware that I reduced the protection time from 2 weeks to 2 days. I'm sorry that I didn't drop you a courtesy note to advise you of the change. I got called away from the terminal and when I returned, the matter had slipped my mind.

--Richard 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; you only fixed where I went wrong. :) Acalamari 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks and mass deletions

Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:

"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out. Smatprt 05:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP templates

Hey A! Hope you're enjoying adminship thoroughly ;) I noticed that you were writing in the time expiry manually at RFPP - you can also set this using the template's parser functions. eg if you're semi-protecting for 3 days, you can write {{RFPP|s|3 days}} which comes out as Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think you can even set a reason by using a fourth parser, eg Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Forgive me if you already knew and I'm being terribly presumptuous! Cheers :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I did know, but thanks for telling me! :) I prefer to type it out because it's easier, and I'm more used to it. If I'm not supposed to type them out, I'll stop.

As for adminship itself, I'm doing fine, though earlier when protecting a page, I decided to shorten the time and mistakenly made it longer. If you check my recent logs, it looks like I protected a page four times when actually I was trying to fix the expiry time. Acalamari 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's OK! The first salting I did didn't work properly, even though I tried doing it a few times. I noticed that another admin came and fixed it a few days later :) I guess there's always people willing to help out, even if there are a few who are quicker to criticise than to praise. As far as I've seen you're doing a great job :) Take care! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't salted any pages yet. I'll have to look up what to do. As for you saying I'm doing a great job, thanks for that. :) Acalamari 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert! --Kbdank71 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Molag Bal's at it again. Been blocking and reverting his socks. Acalamari 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Grey Wolves

Heh oops. Thanks for alerting me. :-) —« ANIMUM » 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]