User talk:Acalamari/Archive I

User talk:Molag Bal in the USA

Thanks for deleting this page, however, could you please also protect it? I filed a request here, because he continued to abuse the unblock template. SalaSkan 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome for me deleting it (Molag Bal's been disruptive for the last few hours), but I don't know how to protect a deleted page. I'm a fairly new administrator, and I haven't learned to protect deleted pages yet. A more experienced administrator will have to do it unfortunately. Acalamari 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

YOU'RE AN ADMIN NOW!!!!

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true; I am. Acalamari 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal

Try blocking his IP, too! So he will never create one again.--  PNiddy  Go!  0 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did in my blocks; it's just that he got around the autoblocks and the account creation blocks; probably by using rotating IPs or an open proxy or something like that so he could remain undetected. I don't know what his IPs are; I'm not a checkuser. Acalamari 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's a sand dollar for you! Sand dollars somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the star, Acalamari. :-) Such a happy way to end this day. Best regards, Húsönd 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's one of two images I uploaded. :) By the way, I just sent an E-mail about a certain issue you might be interested in. Acalamari 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail

Email sent. Thanks so much! Giggy _U^CP 09:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, replied back. :) Acalamari 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Would you mind terribly much reviewing me at my editor review thanks. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. It truly was the most helpful review alongside Husond's I have yet recieved. I will definitly take into account what you say, and try to address the issue. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support and advice! Sincere regards, Neranei ^T/C 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. :) Acalamari 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neranei ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Here is a smile to brighten up your day! Neranei ^T/C 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very, very welcome. Wikipedia needs more kind people like you around! Thank you again. :) Neranei ^T/C 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gonzo Greg

And why was this deleted? He is an American Radio Show host much like Bob & Tom, Tom Joyner, and some others. His show plays nationally and around the world. Just because I didn't provide enough info on him doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was a stub, waiting to have stuff added.

It was nominated for speedy deletion because he wasn't notable. However, if I undelete the page, will you improve the article and be able to provide decent sources to help his notability? Acalamari 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided sources that he worked at KNAC, and who he worked with. There is more information out there about the other stations he worked at, and the content of the shows. Does it all have to be left up to me? I'm not good at editing Wikipedia and using all the wiki markup stuff, so it probably won't turn out well.

Raditude 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it then; please do what you can. I'll do a bit of work on it later. Acalamari 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, and I'll try to add more. I actually did a little clean up already. It needs a stub tag.

Raditude 00:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

{{RFPP}}

Hey Acalamari! I noticed a manual comment added into an RPP section, and I made it template-compatible. {{RFPP}} can be hard to memorize, but you'll get it soon (trust me, from experience :-) ). —« ANIMUM » 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor debarphing, if you can find the time

Can you add one solid source, a sentence nicely phrased from one, to this article? It's rather poorly written, but I really should be doing my own research (as in something I do to sustain myself outside of the Wiki universe). I did copyedit, put fellowships after residency, and it doesn't really need much, but it would be nice to be confident that it got minimal (as in least amount, not in level of competency) research. It's not urgent, but if/when you get a chance, I would appreciate seeing the good doctor getting something near the level of attention gotten by minor pop stars who once appeared on a reality show--okay, one billionth of the attention, not to mention making sure he's real. Thanks. KP Botany 04:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of work on it then; thanks. :) By the way, I heard about the Leah01 sockpuppet; I find it amazing that they're still going on about that article, despite the fact it's been about six months since we first encountered them on that page. I feel sorry for you that they had to go and harass you again. I'm glad all the socks are finally blocked too. Acalamari 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole Leah01 thing is unbelievable. I wrote Mr. Darcy about it, because I blame him for their continuing pop ups--he was always too nice to everyone on Wikipedia (I'm kidding, he was what we should have been striving for all along in how people treat each other, and it's a great loss not to have him). Every single time he/she/it/they post they say exactly the same thing, using all the same words and lame accusations, the same edit histories, the same trashing of the article, the same pouts and slams out the door (that's my act, by the way, and I do object to it being done poorly) when accused of being obviously themselves, and the same lame accusations against me. But I see you were good and stayed away from the socks, letting others deal with it. KP Botany 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes; due to my past conflicts with them, me performing blocks would have been inappropriate. It wasn't just Mr. Darcy who was nice (though he was the nicest); despite my inexperience at the time, I remained civil. Also, you were civil, as was Jeffpw, ChrisGriswold, and other users who were involved; though it seems the grudge is against you (you weren't even the one who discovered the socks; you're not a checkuser! I don't know what you did). Don't think anyone expected a vicious sockpuppetry issue to arise, even after this amount of time.

Anyway, Melvyn Rubenfire looks interesting; I should be able to do some clean-up easily. I'm glad the other articles you and I have worked on haven't had the amount of disruption that Mr. Rodriguez had on his article. Acalamari 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I caught on to too many of their games too quickly, so I became the obvious target. Plus, it was much easier dealing with them if I made all of the protests, so that Jeffpw and ChrisGriswold and you could do the edits. I think that Daniel Rodrigues is an interesting person, and I love are little article about him. I was willing to take the flack so the article could become something good.

Thanks for anything you can do with Rubenfirt. It gets frustrating that so many notables in the world of medicine and the sciences are without a word on Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thank you very much! I'll go read it straight away; do you mind my asking if I have questions? Thanks, Neranei ^T/C 21:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read your review, you were not harsh or anything at all. I appreciate the advice; this past week has been a deluge of advice, and yours is concise and spot-on! I will definitely work on the areas that you mentioned; I was wondering if you'd take a look at a little project of mine and help? Thank you so much for your kindness, patience, and time! As I've said before, Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Thank you!!!! Neranei ^T/C 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the review; I saw the banner on your user and talk page and thought that it would be a good idea to do a review. I am glad I was helpful and not harsh! :) As for me, thank you for your kind words; I am glad you think that. :) However, there many things about Wikipedia that even I am not totally familiar with/don't know about, but then, no one knows everything. :) Anyway, what project did you want me to look at? Acalamari 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! I have been writing the Iquito article, and I was aondering if there were any Wikiformatting things that I forgot. I would really appreciate the help; it shouldn't take too long. Also, a second pair of eyes should help! Thank you again for the review, I am grateful for any advice I'm given, since "to err is human"! And you are a stellar editor! Warm regards and happy editing, Neranei ^T/C 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you have done more than me in that sense; I have not created an article before (I have created talk pages, but a lot of users do that anyway. The most I have done when it comes to creating are templates and categories). I did a couple of formatting fixes and rewording to the article; it looks a bit better for them. Acalamari 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am really really appreciative of the help, would you like me to reciprocate? I would be happy to work on any article that you want, as a thank you. Again, thank you! Cheers, Neranei ^T/C 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but there is no need for you to work on an article I work on as a "reward" for me; only edit an article I work on a lot because you actually want to edit the page; edit it for your own satisfaction. Helping you become a better editor and seeing you improve is rewarding enough for me. :) Acalamari 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That is very, very kind of you. If there is anything, like any projects you would like help on, please ask me. I enjoy helping people! Again, I appreciate all of your help and time! Neranei ^T/C 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFPP

I whole heartedly agree with your actions. As far as I'm concerned, indiscriminately sprotecting userpages is unacceptable, as it says "I love the anyone can edit philosophy... Hands off my userpage anons and new users, you are not trustworthy!!!". Unfortunately it's policy that any user requesting their userpage be protected may be granted the request. So the most I can do is abstain. --Deskana (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought watchlisting would be a good idea too; the user page was barely vandalized, and the talk page shouldn't be semi-protected unless heavy disruption takes place (such as when IPs went on a blanking spree of mine a couple of weeks ago). I'll keep an eye on that user's user/talk page until he returns. Thanks for clarifying. Acalamari 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I decided to protect his userpage. Watchlisting is great, but the policy gives him the right to get protection for his user-page if he requests it. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine then, since you've made that decision; I'll still watchlist his pages in case his talk page gets trolled. Acalamari 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SPP of Talk:Tau Gamma Phi

Hey, I just noticed... I think you got the wrong page :)

The talk page, was what I had requested... You SPP'ed the article page. It happens, thought I'd let ya know. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did semi-protect the talk page; view this. The article is already semi-protected. Hope that helps! Acalamari 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry! I saw the SPP template, and just sorta assumed... Thank you! :) --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's okay; there is no need to apologize. :) Acalamari 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Names

I've replied at Template talk:The Pussycat Dolls; hope I helped. Extraordinary Machine 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:HUMOUR

This is, of course, a joke! Just in case - it just it seems some on wiki have a bit of a sense of humour failure occasionally. Nice candidate, good find! Cheers! Pedro |  Chat  20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See my response. :) Acalamari 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Love it! That's a real smile breaker! Pedro |  Chat  20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jimjet9489

Are you sure it's a sock? They look like two totally different editors.  ;-) The image keeps popping up, and I haven't seen a source for it yet. Considering it looks like it was made in MS Paint, it's probably best deleted. Thanks for letting me know. 17Drew 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking User:75.50.245.135. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. E-mail!

Take your time, dear A! :) I can see that you're quite a busy man now ;) Seriously, I'm not going anywhere, and tho I'd love to get your news, I'll wait patiently. Love you, Phaedriel - 12:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A little guidance...

Can you please take a look at recent edits to User:Jimblack. Atlan's edit seems malicious and an attack to me and I'm tempted to continue reverting it, but don't want to be drawn into a violation of WP:3RR. Just looking for a little guidance and commentary as I'm new(ish) around here. Douglasmtaylor 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message on Atlan's talk page. Not sure what he's trying to do there. Acalamari 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Douglasmtaylor 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited his user page, because he is not a writer or journalist. I don't really care about people lying about themselves (it's a rather common thing on the internet), but when it discredits a profession people study for, it goes too far. I would leave him a message saying I find the user box inappropriate, but he's notoriously unresponsive when someone seeks dialogue with him. I have only been able to ever talk to him for any length of time when he was blocked. He's just a kid playing around, which is fine by me, as long as it doesn't hurt the project. Anyway, it might seem a bit harsh of me to edit his user page like that, but it was a judgement call based on past experiences.--Atlan (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and explanation. After looking though Jimblack's talk page and block log, I can see why you did it, but even so, it's not really appropriate. However, if Jimblack continues his disruptive edits, you won't have to worry about the userbox, as he will end up getting blocked indefinitely, and his user page will get deleted. Acalamari 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here, since all three of us seem to be watching and discussing here. And, doubtless, I'll be more verbose than this situation calls for. That said . . . In general, I went to Acalamari for guidance, not to intervene. It seemed to me that the edit was unnecessarily harsh and I thought that user pages were more or less proprietary, but I didn't know whether Jimblack's history justified it or not (yes, I looked at it). The reason I did not simply call it vandalism in the roll back that I did, nor tag Atlan's page was because I just didn't know....so sought guidance. Some things are obvious, some things are not. Whatever the case, I am new around here and getting used to the culture as well as the rules, so I thought going to an admin for advice (guidance) would be the safest course. Nothing personal, Atlan. And next time I'll . . . well, next time I may still ask an admin for advice, but I'll be more predisposed to just take it to the other editor. Thanks. Douglasmtaylor 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, and I did not know who else to ask, I am only asking because you are an administrator, but if you are the wrong person to ask this question, because you don't really know the answer, or if it is a really stupid question, then ignore this. Some user keeps edit warring over this. He has done it before on the Immortal Technique article, and now that I created a discography for the artist, he will most likely start edit warring there. Is that allowed, I mean, isn't that some sort of promotion for the website, "with news updates" or something like that? Also, do external links have to be titled exactly the same title that is being used in their websites? Does it have to be "Immortal Technique Discography Site", or can it just be referred to as a "Complete discography of Immortal Technique" instead? The second one definitely is more explanatory. Again, if this is a really stupid question ignore it, but please at least tell me that it is one, so I don't have to wait for an answer.

Moving on to the second part of this message, please check out WP:ANI, the "User:Lcnhop" issue, and please check out every link from there because you will find a few sockpuppets, disruptive edits, anti-MoS edits, edits that incorporate album covers in articles, which is against fair-use, and also a lot of insults from that user. Also a bunch of edit wars in which the user was involved. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You know how it says Wikipedia is not an advertising service? I thought that saying "with news updates" was to get the reader to check out the link. Either way however, is it even necessary to add it there? It is not really on topic, it should be there only for more discography information, not more general news on the artist. Do you understand? As for the AN/I, I would really appreciate it if you could solve that situation with all those sockpuppets and edit warring and that user insulting me for no reason. I am getting tired of it. Almost every time I check my watchlist, I find that user either continuing the edit war, leaving rude messages on talk pages, rude edit summaries, etc., I just want him to calm down. Although he probably won't as he was already blocked and is still doing this. Now on one of the diffs I provided he says it is stupid to have a discography for an artist. I don't know where to begin to explain to that user that he is wrong. Anyway, as I already said, please help me. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not advertising, that is where we get the sources for all the albums and everything. It is just the way that user is naming it that makes it sound like an advertisement. Is my version neutral enough? See Immortal Technique discography. While you are at it, I am almost positive that labelling a link "with free MP3 download of..." would be considering some sort of spam or advertising or promotion for the song, right? Also, labelling a link "Immortal Technique fansite - with discussion forum" would also be wrong right? As it would be some sort of promotion for that forum. By the way, it is not just a fansite as the artist himself posts news updates on that website all the time. Also, and this one is really minor, I have this thing for keeping things really organized, and so I ordered some categories and external links alphabetically, but the same user called it vandalism, would it be considered vandalism? I didn't remove any information or add libel or anything like that. And, last, can I use this discussion as some sort of "proof" that the user's version of the external links is not as neutral as mine? He will most likely come back. Thank you for your help. --- Realest4Life 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff of two of those external links that have issues with their naming. --- Realest4Life 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He is still around. Also, can you answer the other part of my question? When the vandal comes back and tries to name the links incorrectly, can I say an admninistrator said they should be named my way? It won't make a difference to him, but when I report him, people won't think we are having a dumb edit war. And what about me ordering categories and links alphabetically? Is it allowed? --- Realest4Life 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's back yet again! This guy does not know when to stop. Please block all of his sockpuppets, look at his message on his talk page, or look at is user page, and look at his talk page. I don't think he will stop until he is blocked for like a month or so. He just keeps coming back with more sockpuppets. Can't you do anything about it? --- Realest4Life 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And again. Please do something. --- Realest4Life 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And again. --- Realest4Life 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to WP:ANI. Check this out. --- Realest4Life 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... he will come back though. Is there a way to stop him from creating accounts and not allow him to edit as an anonymous user? Can you answer the other questions I asked you above though please? When he keeps naming links inappropriately, can I show him this discussion to tell him he is wrong? --- Realest4Life 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically, I'm gonna have to keep this up until he decides to quit? --- Realest4Life 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When can his account be indefinitely blocked? After how many blocks? And if he does come back, can I just ask you to block him again after I show you his vandalism? --- Realest4Life 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I understand, thank you for everything. --- Realest4Life 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, this guy is a vandal and I knew what was waiting for me when I started to format the Immortal Technique article. I was positive he would retaliate somehow. I gave him three warnings, which he blanked before, he would not listen, and I was ready to have him blocked. What I didn't expect was for him to come back with so many sockpuppets. I would leave his messages on talk pages if they weren't personal attacks, but he called me a clown and all this other shit, so I am not gonna take that from him, besides, it says you are supposed to remove any personal attack from talk pages. We have given him enough warnings, telling him it is against the rules, you saw his response, "Fuck wikipedia admins". I have nothing else to say to him. --- Realest4Life 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your help. --- Realest4Life 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Semi-protecting my user page was certainly okay. With the most recent set of edits, I think it's gotten more vandalism recently than many of the pages on WP:MVP. I was actually soon going to request it's temporary semi-protection. Thanks, Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; if it gets heavily vandalized again after the semi-protection ends, either go to RFPP and request semi-protection there, or just ask me. :) Acalamari 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Email

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

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)

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)

Re: Email

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

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

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)

Semi-protected

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Thankyou!

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

Thanks!

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)

The vandal

He's back.

Again.

Again.

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)