User talk:Acalamari/Archive E

That was such a weird spate of vandalism... I can't even begin to guess who that might have been. Natalie 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke to soon. It's one of the same people who keeps vandalizing Jackson State University and some other college websites for some reason. I blocked him on the 26th for 1 week - the block must have just lifted. Natalie 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I wasn't offended, and it was an understandable mistake. --Kyoko 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acalamari, thanks for your strong support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Thanks so much also for the award, and your kind comments on my talk page. I really appreciate them, I feel incredibly humbled, and thank you also for updating the tally regularly throughout. I do look forward to supporting another RfA from you as well. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do badly in the RfB; it wasn't snowballed or anything; you had more supports than opposes. Good luck!. Acalamari 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! Mad Jack 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets and roads in Hong Kong, your reason for deletion is baffling: "Wikipedia is not for lists." Assuming good faith, did you mean something else, such as directory? If you are against lists in general, I guess you can bring it up at Wikipedia talk:List guideline. –Pomte 06:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry, I worded my reason wrong. In fact, after looking at all the reasons to keep I'm changing my decision. Sorry. Acalamari 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really picked up an obsessive vandal with that one. Sigh... maybe they'll give up soon. Natalie 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the vandal I think they are, I don't think they'll be stopping anytime soon. If they're not...well, we'll see what happens. The only thing I find annoying about this vandal is that I have to update my vandal count, and I try to edit my user page as little as possible. If this keeps up, maybe I'll just update the count every two or three cases. Acalamari 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. But I guess if you've figured out how to keep their attention a way, that's all you can do for now. And revert, block, ignore, or course. Natalie 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I deleted his article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad to help. :) Acalamari 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this award. I hope in the near future, your RfA will become successful. A Raider Like Indiana 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment! As for your award, you're welcome; you've done a lot of good edits on Fergie (singer)-related articles, and I felt you deserved a barnstar for it. Acalamari 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{I have moved the award to my subpage.}

You're welcome; I was glad to support you. :) Acalamari 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up, it seems like some vandalism has been done to Natalie Erin's user page. You might want to update the vandalism counter. Time stands still as I gaze in her waters 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{The award has been moved to the subpage.}

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. I have been a bit down lately waiting for my internet connection and I have been away for nearly a month but now Iam back and firing..yeah..I've seen you have been doing quite well (over 6600 edits), so when will you apply for adminship cause I would love to co-nominate you..hehe..Its good to be back..--Cometstyles 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, actually Cometstyles I was in an RfA when you were on a Wikibreak, and my RfA sank. If you want to see what happened just look at the message I've put at the top of my user and talk page, and you can link to the RfA if you want. Acalamari 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh I didnt know. Iam sorry. I dont actually understand why you were opposed, but Its usually because of bad timing or maybe self-nomination and I wish I was here then, I would have fought for you. Things like these have been happening quite a lot lately where a person who deserves it dont actually get it. I have gone through a lot of RfA's and its a pity that people still make bad judgements and because of unseen circumstances I wasnt around (It wasnt actually a wikibreak, I was moving houses and because Iam on dial-up and because the telecommunication companies are so lame and corrupted was the reason for my dissappearance or else I would have been around). I hope you apply again sometime in the near future because I believe you are one of those editors that deserve to be an Admin..--Cometstyles 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made several mistakes in January and February, and all of them combined were enough to generate as many opposes as they did. Even so, my supports managed to reach 40. I am not going to self-nominate again, and if someone decides to nominate me anytime before June 21st (three months after the RfA began) I will turn it down. I'm going to use that failed RfA as a way to improve myself as an editor overall, not just as a way to become an admin. I don't believe adminship is a reward (and the page about administrators says that). On the bright side, as I said in the RfA, I'd treat it as a editor review, and that's what I'm doing. I do not consider the RfA to be a failure. Sure, the RfA didn't pass; but on an emotional and editor level, it was a success because it said about where I can improve myself. Acalamari 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thats the exact reason why I believe you deserve to be an Admin. You should never be judged for one or two mistakes you make but I agree, it wasnt a failure..its just what every editor needs to succeed(criticism) and if people dont learn from their mistakes then where else do they learn from, Anywayz I hope you succeed in 'improving' yourself(Even though I dont believe you need to) and hope you continue doing a great job on Wikipedia as you have been doing till now...Cheers...--Cometstyles 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't check my Wikipedia email as obsessively as I check my regular email, so sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I think you've handled this situation very well, and it will be a good demonstration of your learning when you are nominated for RfA again. I would have had a really hard time on WIkipedia when I was your age, so I do think you have been handling the vandals very well, all things considered. Natalie 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, and there's no need to apologize for being late to respond. Sometimes it takes me a few days to get back to someone. Natalie Erin, would you mind blocking Time stands still as I gaze in her waters? They left a message on my talk page called "Vandalism counter", and I am 100% sure that that user is our favorite vandal. Acalamari 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely them. Blocked. Natalie 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, thanks. :) Acalamari 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Darthgriz⁹⁸ 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I was more than happy to support you. It was nice to see someone receive pile-on support. Acalamari 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me delete the Project for Pride in Living article off of this wikipedia as well as the user talk page? I do not want it to be searchable on google either. I deleted all content since it did not meet standards, but I don't want people to search and find a blank page. If you could do that, that would be great! Thanks! RebeccaC21

No, I cannot delete it; I don't have the ability to; I'm not an administrator. If you want them deleted quickly you can nominate them for speedy deletion, or just ask someone's who's an admin; or, if you want, I can ask an administrator to delete them for you. Acalamari 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied already per WP:CSD#G7 - Alison^☺ 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; thanks Alison; I thought Ryan did it because I saw him respond to the user. Sorry. :) Acalamari 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! I didn't delete them, some other admin did :) But yes, Rebecca's old account userpage has also been deleted now. See discussion on Ryan's talk - Alison^☺ 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't? Who did? Whoever it was did it quickly. Acalamari 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowHalo did. The userpage was zapped by Fang Aili. Efficiency, eh? :) - Alison^☺ 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I barely had a chance to react there. Acalamari 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; and I personally think a "userbox war" would waste time anyway. Absolutely true. Sadly, the Userbox Wars really happened. We really did waste a huge amount of time on it. See this RFC for more background. Cheers, // PTO 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I personally am not bothered by userboxes, though it seems some users are opposed to them. I'll read the links you provided me. Acalamari 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "Because" at the start of a sentence. This is a naively taught heuristic. The grammatical error is only in a situation like "Why did you do this. Because I wanted to." If you have "Because I wanted to, I did this." (or "I did this because I wanted to."), the dependent clause ("Because...") is part of a complete sentence, which is perfectly fine. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny...I was always taught it was bad grammar to start a sentence with because. Obviously I'm letting personal experience getting in the way of Wikipedia slightly there. Sorry. Acalamari 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know about some English grammar; you didn't break anything or cause any problem. Starting a sentence with "Because" can be bad, and it is common situation that it is, but "Do not start a sentence with because" is just a superficial rule that doesn't conform to the actual issue with doing so. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I'll be more careful in the future. Thank you for this. Acalamari 02:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you people continue to delete my edit on "7 may"????? it is not vandalism! how can the birth of the National AJROTC Rifle Team Commander be vandalism, when you guys have "1975 - Nicole Sheridan, American porn star" posted?????? thank you for being complete jerks.

All your other edits, such as the blanking of Academic Challenger's user page and this edit. How is this person notable? Oh, and about Natalie Erin and I being jerks? Ha, ha; at the moment we are lovers, not jerks. Acalamari 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*snerk!* pardon???? :-) - Alison^☺ 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are! :) Remember? Acalamari 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! The romance continues. Stay tuned for the next installment :) - Alison^☺ 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You practically have a harem going. Natalie 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who?? Me?? Yah, right!! :-b - Alison^☺ 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, that's what the vandals seem to think. And who are we to doub them, being the considerate, mature, thoughtful people they so often are? Natalie 03:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. Still - no reason why us girls can't have our own "boy-rems", hm? :) - Alison^☺ 03:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Phaedriel was a very prolific editor to Wikipedia last year, and she did a large amount of work pertaining to Native Americans. Because of her anti-vandal efforts, and more importantly, because of her very sweet nature, she earned the respect, admiration, and friendship of many people here on Wikipedia. Her page is on my watchlist, and doubtless on countless of other people's lists as well. I'm very glad to see her back. --Kyoko 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see her back as well; from what I've heard, she is very, very nice (more than very, very nice, actually). Acalamari 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am dismayed by your comments on the aforementioned candidacy page. Surely you know that I am entitled to object to any candidate for any reason I feel is germane. I happen to have strong feelings about the content of user pages, and I choose to oppose the candidacy of editors whose user pages contain what I feel is questionable or inappropriate content. If you feel that my user page contains questionable or inappropriate content, you would be perfectly entitled to oppose my own candidacy for adminship. You might even choose to remove the content in question; this is, after all, a wiki, and I do not own my user page. However, I find your tone excessively strident and threatening.

I don't exactly know what your intent was by telling me that my oppositions on this basis has "got to stop"; however, it is impossible to interpret your allegation that my practice of such oppositions of being "point-oriented" as being anything other than an accusation of disrupting the encyclopedia by my oppositions. I find such an accusation ludicrous. How can a few oppose votes in a few requests for adminship be "disruptive"? Quite frankly, I do not see my oppositions being disruptive of anything other than the culture that tolerates, even encourages userboxes -- and that culture has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. I am not disrupting Wikipedia. If you really do believe that I am, take it to a Request for Comments, or to the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I should have been more civil with that message; it was not meant to be threatening in any way, and I am sorry. However, I am not going to bring you to the Arbitration Committee or Requests for Comment over your neutrals and opposes; I am not seeking conflict with you or anyone else. I just don't see why you have to oppose people over a few mistakes on a user page. I believe you could have politely pointed out the errors on the user page; that to me makes for more sense than to just oppose a user over the page. I want to see an editor who does good work, is civil, and has a lot of experience; those qualities matter to me far more than their user page. Yes, I am well aware you are entitled to your own opinion when giving input in someone's RfA, but everyone has to be careful what they say in an RfA in case the support/oppose/neutral is inappropriate. I expect in my next RfA (which won't be for some time, as my recent one was not successful), you will probably say neutral or oppose over what's happened recently, but that won't bother or surprise me (after all, it's your opinion).

However, I do agree with you if the user page is inappropriate. Even I would have to give a neutral at first over a very messy and rule-violating user page; and I would probably switch to an oppose if the user didn't address any concerns over it. However, I wouldn't call their user page sloppy, and I wouldn't say they have divisive userboxes. Instead, I would politely point out what's wrong on the user page.

I would not oppose your candidacy for adminship over your user page, nor am I going to remove anything from your user page; as user pages don't bother me. I was actually repeating what other people had said about you when you said that some users had divisive userboxes, while you were told you have potentially divisive userboxes. The userbox that says you're a feminist doesn't worry me, and I don't consider it divisive. It's your point of view, and I'm not going to question it; to oppose that userbox would be sexism. The Satan userbox doesn't offend me either, as it's humorous (well, to me anyway).

As I said, I'm not going to fight you; I don't want to escalate this; going to Arbitration or Requests for Comment is extremely excessive, an over-reaction, and will just cause more harm than good. I also admit that my message on Walton monarchist89's RfA to you was also probably in violation of WP:POINT, and from what you've said, probably WP:CIVIL as well (if I have violated WP:CIVIL, I will be irritated with myself over that, as I strictly follow that policy). However, I think it would be wise to politely inform users of errors on their user pages. You may disagree with opinion that if you wish. The "got to stop" I mentioned was excessive; I shouldn't have said that.

Again, I am sorry for any incivility in my message on the RfA; it wasn’t intended. I hope this message was helpful to you. Acalamari 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Acalamari. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. At the moment I'm forgetting where I've seen you around. I know it's somewhere :).--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) You saw me at my unsuccessful RfA, you used to see me at RFCN; but we do encounter each other on the AfD's. That's where you've seen me. :) Don't let the unsuccessful RfA let you down; keep positive, and treat the entire thing as a large-scale editor review. A failed RfA is less of a failure than you think (I should know, mine wasn't a success). You be can be assured I will support you next time. :) Acalamari 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, actually, thanks for the pointer.  :) Corvus cornix 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Good. :) At least I was of some help. Acalamari 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're quite right — that was careless of me. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then. :) I did a similar thing not too long ago by accidentally reverting to the wrong version. Acalamari 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, and thank you. A Raider Like Indiana 22:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) I was more than happy to give you advice. Acalamari 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently updating my profile. I will put it back on sometime later, and thanks for noticing that I took the "Admin someday" box off. A Raider Like Indiana 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to say what I'd done when I saw your message. Yes — 2008... It's bad enough when people rush to make articles about things happeneing in a few months' time, but a year! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've given the creator the appropriate links regarding crystal-ballism and sources. I figured that was a good thing to do. Acalamari 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have done that; I was in too much of a hurry (it's the beginning of term, and I shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I was glad to support you. :) Acalamari 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{Award moved to my subpage.}

You're welcome. :) I am glad you are now a sysop. Acalamari 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put a beautiful pic at your talk page, hoping to cheer it up a little bit... and you in the process! :) Love, Phaedriel 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the beautiful picture. :) Acalamari 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Star is incredibly beautiful, dear A - thank you! :) and don't worry about the format of my talk page, I'm redesigning it anyway. That beautiful star will have a place of honor in my new userpage. You are so sweet! :) Hugs, Phaedriel - 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Check your mail in 5 mins![reply]

I am glad you like it. :) Acalamari 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ... I was going too fast, and must have had the wrong choice on the pull-down list (I'm familiar with this particular pest). Cheers, and keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you're welcome. :) I am glad I was able to be of some use there! Acalamari 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. If I had any clue what he was talking about, I might be able to respond more usefully. I don't recall editing any spam links having to do with Charlotte, but who knows? Wahkeenah 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you removed any, and I can't remember why the user left that message on your talk page, but I do know I removed spam links, and was given a message written with a caps-locked title. Acalamari 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've removed spam links from time to time, not that often, and none to do with Charlotte that I can recall. However, the wording of it reads like someone "on" something, so trying to apply reason and logic to it is probably a futile effort. Wahkeenah 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved. As User:Alison pointed out, it was because of the minor spam-revert war that you and I got into with a different IP address on about March 14. Wahkeenah 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it was something like that. :) Thanks. Acalamari 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like with all the other edits going on, he managed to slip those spam links back in there. So he won. For the moment. Now that he's blocked, you may do the honors if you wish. :) Wahkeenah 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. And as far as him "coming back with a vengeance", it depends on whether he finds another IP address, since the last one or two he used have been blocked, at least temporarily. Wahkeenah 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Hah yeah I know the feeling when you feel you're about to bring an onslaught on yourself! Will (aka Wimt) 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does seem pretty busy! Happy to help again :-) Will (aka Wimt) 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you continue to vandalize the Charlotte listing.

These links have been here for quite sometime. I have already gone through arbitration on this, and mods who ACTUALLY live in Charlotte AGREED.

Your selective enforcement of links is ridiculous. Just because a link is commercial does not mean it is spam. Your choice of what commericial links are allowable and those that are not IS A JOKE!

It's either okay, or it's not. Nowhere does it say it is up to Acalamari's perverted view of what is acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.118.10 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The links are not appropriate to Wikipedia. Please stop adding them. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. You said you've gone through arbitration; would you mind providing a link to that arbitration case? Acalamari 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked, but only short-term temporarily, so I expect this nonsense will continue. Wahkeenah 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. What a nuisance. You've got the attention of a good admin, though, and that should help. Wahkeenah 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Excellent. Who'd have thought an innocuous topic like Charlotte would require semi-protection. You just never know which wiki-nuts are on the loose. Wahkeenah 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments at my RFA. Even though it probllys won't go through. I would like to "try" and see it out until the end, so I can see what went wrong and improve again for another one in about 3 months time. Thanks. Retiono Virginian 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Be aware though, that your RfA may be removed if the amount of opposes and neutrals continue to go up at their current rate. Acalamari 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more up JeffPW's alley, but he has retired from Wikipedia. He's good at obscure research, far better than I am, and I suspect he has university access. However, if you get some time would you check out Paul Sadler and delete anything unsourced and unverifiable from it? A user claiming to be Paul Sadler deleted some of the content that I felt was questionable. However, I would feel better if the article was rigorously sourced. I am working on a major art project right now, plus work, and school, and can barely function, much yet edit. Let me know if you don't have the time, and I will try to think of someone else. Another sock puppet account for Leah01/Bob/Bonnie/OperaDog popped up and they were blocked permanently. I'm sorry to say it looks like it will be impossible to get that article to FA status because of the aggressive and hostile sock puppetry. JeffPW (with help from you and I and MrDarcy) really polished it, though. KP Botany 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acalamari, I want the careful editing after research. Delete anything you want for now, but, yes, wait until you can do some research. I expect the research to be challenging at the least. I deleted some stuff I knew was wrong, or suspected, but probably left too much. Err on the side of deletion for now. Thanks. KP Botany 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not just both better than before (in the case of DR, that could be so without registering a blip of positive), they're both well-written and well-researched, and useful articles. Jeff kicked butt on the Rodriguez article, with a little help that he readily acknowledges, it's really wound up to be a BLP that Wikipedia can display with pride, except for the angry owners continuing to disdain and attack other editors. It deserves to go all the way to the main page, but there's no way it will as long as the owners cannot leave the article and the editors working on it alone to do what is necessary. Still, even without it being on the main page, it's a shiner, they both are. KP Botany 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit and wanted to let you know for future reference that the {{·}} template should be placed immediately after the word or phrase since there's a non-breaking space built into it. (So it should look like one{{·}} two{{·}} three instead of one {{·}} two {{·}} three.) ShadowHalo 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I didn't realize that was the case. I'll begin fixing those on other templates too. I am really sorry. Acalamari 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big problem or anything. I just figured I'd let you know so that you can adjust next time you convert the middots. ShadowHalo 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{Award moved to my subpage.}

Maybe he's not who I was thinking of. I nominated it for deletion on the basis of your and my failed searches for independent information. This is the sort of stuff web sites are made of, as there is nothing, I suspect it's a hoax. KP Botany 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I couldn't find anything about him. Acalamari 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I assume if you can't find anything, then it either needs deleted or better heads than the two of us to find something. KP Botany 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, of course, is why I'm anti-deletion, I apparently haven't figured out how to actually nominate something. KP Botany 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never worry, but I did wonder why none of the deletionists had simply tagged onto it. Of course, the fact that I had failed to add it to the discussion might have had a lot to do with that. I make errors in all of my articles and have a handful of editors who follow me around and fix them. I love Wikipedia for that, everything I do gets polished. One of the very first things I did at Wikipedia was create a new article (wow, daring, but I didn't know better), and within no time it looked pretty good, but not solely because of me. KP Botany 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botany is a very underserved area of Wikipedia, so all of the handful of botany editors that we have, have created articles. It's fairly routine to pop up a botanical stub when some plant is in the news all of a sudden. In addition, botan is a rapidly changing area due to the coming together of large data processing powers and the techniques for sequencing genomes, now just almost 15 years old. It's like the genetics revolution in the early 20th century that pulled together many of the pieces of Darwinian evolution, but the 21st century is all about angiosperms. It's very exciting. But, yes, I've created probably a dozen articles at least, and did major builds on some important botanical topics (Amborellaceae, but I don't keep track. I'm working on a huge article right now. It's botany, so the other botany editors will edit it for me, whether I ask them or not, but I'll post you a note when I create it. KP Botany 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{Award moved to my subpage.}

You're welcome! :) I was glad to support you. Acalamari 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing okay, but I haven't been editing much- my pc's got another nasty virus off MSN and I've been busy. I noticed the rfa thing. Shame it didn't work out. :( Better luck next time. Nukleoptra 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad you're doing well. I just wanted to leave you a message to see how you were. As for my RfA, I had mistakes from January and February going against me. All of them combined were enough to sink the RfA. A lot of my mistakes came from inexperience, and most are very easy to avoid. Anyway, you're doing well, which I'm pleased to see. :) Acalamari 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this revert, it was greatly appreciated! ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! The person who vandalized your page also vandalized a load of other user pages. I gave them an only warning and they seem to have stopped (for the moment anyway). Acalamari 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped? I don't think so. In any case, I put a request in WP:AIV just to be sure. Thanks again! ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the user has been blocked now (via the WP:AIV request), so my userpage (and many others) can rest in peace =) ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been tons of times an answer was staring me in the face... it just took someone else to point it out  :)--Isotope23 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't think you're crazy, just smitten! :) - BillCJ 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! :) Acalamari 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!! Like we all suspected :) - Alison ☺ 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I really should let other users or Natalie herself update it for some time. :) Due to my vandalism reversions and updating of her counter, I have more than 60 edits to her user page. I am glad you semi-protected it, Alison; that vandalism was getting ridiculous. Acalamari 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving a message, I've always admired your work as an editor. QuasyBoy 11:42, 3 May 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course!!! ;) QuasyBoy 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude ^(VT)

I personally didn't have anything to say about the logos during the AfD, but I'll talk about them now. I'm not taking sides or anything, but in my personal opinion, putting in the logos turns a large section of the article into a long list. I think mentioning that each episode has a different logo is notable, but listing what every single one of them is seems unnecessary. However, this is just my opinion: you're free to ignore it. Acalamari 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appericate your opinion. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 04:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) I hope I was helpful to you. Acalamari 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for you support etc. It was REALLY appreciated. ~ G1ggy! _Reply 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME? CandeeJ 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you following my edits or something? CandeeJ 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I had to go to Mel Etitis' talk page for something else when I saw your edit there. I decided to check your contributions to see if you were online or not. I saw that you were, so I reverted the attack message against Mel Etitis you left on JJH1992's talk page, and left you a message on your own talk page and on Mel Etitis'. I left one on User talk: Mel Etitis to show that I have warned you about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Acalamari 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't got to your message yet (I have the bad habit of checking through my messages in reverse, from the latest backwards...). I've reverted the move, and cleaned things up; I don't think that there was anything in the history of the original redirect than needed saving. What a mess... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that. I should go and tell Musicfreak7676 that they should have discussed the move first. Anyway, coping and pasting the text from the old version to a new page is against policy, as it doesn't copy the history. Again, thank you. Acalamari 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed the following line as being point of view: 'The tempo of most songs was slower, but the songs on "Voyager" missed the cheerfull atmosphere that characterized her first album.' Is this really point of view? Instead of removing it, could you please refrase it, so that it is not POV? By the way, I am interested in this singer because since long I have her entire discography, being 2 records ;-) , but I can not find any information about her. What is her background. What happened to her after her 2 records. I noticed you work a lot on singers. Could you find some extra information about her? Kind regards, Arconada 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line I removed is POV, because it looks like someone is describing how the album sounds, and it looks like someone is comparing the two albums. I agree, it should be re-phrased, but it also needs a source to avoid original research.

I have never heard of Karen Alexander until recently, as I've been going through the "American female singers" category. Sadly, if no sources are found about this lady, then the page might have to be deleted. I will, however, gladly look for some sources about her first. :) Acalamari 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are solid sources! The two records! Besides there are artists who covered (at least one of) her songs. So there is absolutely no need to delete this article. Could you give me some clue how to rephrase this sentence to avoid POV. Arconada 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In going over my sources, I noticed a peculiar discrepancy. The leaflet in her first album says she composed all her songs. On the label it says she wrote all her songs, except for the title song. I put a ref to the website where the lyric of Karla Bonoff is found. I un-did part of your deletion. I think what is left now can hardly be noted as POV. Arconada 08:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've done a good job finding sources for Karen Alexander and establishing notability. What you've written doesn't seem POV anymore, as you've sourced the page. I'll see if I can do some improvements to the page as well. Good work. :) Acalamari 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a coincidence; I came here to reply to your message and found this. I came across the article myself earlier today, and did some work adding sources, infobox, etc. Strictly speaking the track-listing shouldn't be there for each album, but I didn't remove it; I probably should. It's off that finding information on this pwerson (dates of birth [and death?], for example) is so difficult. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]