User talk:Acalamari/Archive A

Hello Acalamari!

Hello Acalamari! Welcome to Wikipedia. We hope to see you in the nearby future making constructive edits and preventing vandalism. If you have any questions just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck.Tennislover 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It was no problem welcoming you. I always check the new user log.Tennislover 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I noticed your message you left for Va girl2468. You can find userbox collections at Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedian userboxes. Pink moon 1287 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to post that. It looks like Pink moon1287 beat me to it. Va girl2468 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

No, I can't see your e-mail address. Va girl2468

User pages

You know, there is much more to Wikipedia than user and user talk pages. I recommend checking out the encyclopedia part. Curious: Why the interest in others' userboxes/political leanings? If you ever have any questions or need any help, let me know. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Amanda Michalka Page

I removed the information about AJ dating one of the Jonas Brothers, as it is gossip and not fit to be on an encyclopedia page. However, the info you added about her ethnicity is uncited and has to be cited from another source or it will be removed -Rosepuff12 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents Panel

When enough posts are added to a talk page, a contents panel is created automatically. Articles with a lot of sections also have a contents panel so you can get to a certain section faster by clicking on it. -Rosepuff12 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Accusation Reply

That's OK. There are a lot of things about Wikipedia to know. -Rosepuff12 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Umm... there is absolutely zero to no question that "Jewish" is an ethnicity, be it Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc. If this was an IMDB message board I suppose you could debate me, but we're at Wikipedia, where this is accepted fact and stated at every single article we have about the subject, so.... Mad Jack 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Virus alert

No, I mean what I say. A webpage cannot harm you. The only possibility I can think of where they might be a problem is if there are any links to harmful file downloads elsewhere on the Internet, but they are not part of the page itself, and there is no way you can get infected just by visiting the page. Tra (Talk) 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think there should be a problem, but as a precaution, I've uploaded new copies of both of the images you mentioned over the top of the existing images. If you clear your cache, the possibly-infected images should go away. Tra (Talk) 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I did both "Dirrty" and "Stripped". Not everyone has the same program as you, so anyone who has looked at that page recently will need to manually refresh their cache. I made a new copy of the image by viewing the image page, pressing print screen and saving the new image. This means that only the bitmap data is kept, and the rest of the image is lost. Tra (Talk) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to remove vandalism

Yes it was right that you removed it, as the information was unconfirmed. That is considered vandalism if the person does not add a link to the source where they read the information. -Rosepuff12 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

That's all right, you don't have to apologize. Mad Jack 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Amanda Michalka

I also asked an Administrator and it was also declined. It was worth a shot though. We'll have to try to talk to the people vandalizing like you said. -Rosepuff12 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude how come you're obssessed with Aly & AJ?

Is it because they're Christian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolande (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the response I left on Rolande's Talk Page: When you leave comments on Talk Pages, please use proper grammar and spelling. I corrected your mistakes. For your information, I am not obsessed with Aly & AJ. I happen to have their pages in my Watchlist. Also, I am not a Christian, or of any religion for that matter. In Wikipedia, I avoid as many discussions about religion as I can. Plus, why are you asking me about this anyway? Acalamari 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only religious discussion I'm in is the one about the genre of Aly & AJ's music. I do edit other pages besides those that are about the Michalkas. Acalamari 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Aly & AJ

I recieved your message regarding Aly and AJ, but I have question: Do they play their own instruments? The All-women bands is for bands with women who play their own instruments, and the Girl groups category is for groups of female singers who do not play their own intruments. I didn't see any mention of them doing anything other than singing, which is why I made the category edit. Asarelah 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up about the vandal. Anyway, I just looked up Aly and AJ on Google and you were right about the playing their own instruments. I'll leave them in the all-women bands cat. Asarelah 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet?

Yep, pretty obvious sockpuppetry. Both should be indefinitely blocked. And while I wouldn't generally expect this, User:Opronc-oA actually does have email enabled -- Special:Emailuser/Opronc-oA. Though I should warn you that emailing them would reveal your email address, which could potentially lead to abuse (spam, trolling, and such). Your call. Luna Santin 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you wanna. :) Good luck. Luna Santin 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, fair enough. I've deleted all the user pages, if you want to let them know. Luna Santin 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't actually delete accounts, unfortunately. In part because there's rarely any real need to do so, in part to maintain GFDL compliance. Luna Santin 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR temporary block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. I know that you know not to do this. From now on, instead of edit warring, contact an admin. I am protecting the page until this over. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation --Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification

Please confirm that you are a respondent in this case.Alan.ca 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have signed. Acalamari 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am willing to represent our side in the debate. Is this acceptable? --King Bee 15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to go to the mediation page and sign, saying that you agree to me representing our side. --King Bee 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the welcome. Umm what is the three revert edit rule?--"P-Machine" 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dictatorship huh?--"P-Machine" 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reponse to update

Thanks for the update. I myself have not really been checking what's been going on on the Aly & AJ page, but it was nice to get and update. -Rosepuff12 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about signing the "Consent" section. I wasn't sure if I had to sign the section but now I know. -Rosepuff12 19:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that was wrong. It must have changed without me realizing while I was editing the page. I noticed it had underlined unencyclopedic as a misspelled word and I thought that it had changed it when I clicked on it so it was spelled right. Apparently, it did the opposite of what I thought it did. Thanks for noticing it. -Rosepuff12 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Can We Block This User?

Already blocked 210.5.121.190 for a week. ;) I've noticed that article has a bit of a history, and that vandalism seemed to match the style of somebody who'd been there, before. *shrug* Luna Santin 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling at Prussian Blue (duo)

I really don't know much about standards for removing comments from talk pages and this is why I didn't do so with these comments. They are certainly inappropriate, but you should perhaps check with other more knowledgeable folk about when talk comments can be deleted or check the Wikipedia policy pages. Phiwum 04:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

because I have only ever encountered you on Aly & AJ, and because Prussian Blue is so very different but not, I am curious: Are you really into teen sister pop duos? --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

Re: Category: Heterosexual Wikipedians

Yes, I am well aware of that fact. As you may also note, there is no category for Engaged to Kevin Wikipedians, Femmina Wikipedians, or Boar/Pig sign Wikipedians and still I have kept them on my user page as categories. The reason? I have no interest or reason to bother changing them and, despite your suggestion, I will leave them all unchanged. Thank you anyway. Sweet Pinkette 13:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards external link

COuld you please explain why you took down the michael richard's laugh factory site? Such links must be taken down by consensus and not by what YOU think should or should not be on wikipedia. At least have the civility to explain your actions.

Further edits WITHOUT consensus will force me to limit your editing on the micael richards page for breach of the revert 3 rule. I would encourage further by consensus and discussion on the talk page. Thank you for your contributions, nevertheless, and take care to contribute in the correct way, sincerely, 124.19.40.219 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is bluster and nonsense. You can't do anything of the sort. Read WP:BOLD for why this editor is editing the way he is. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Thank you for removing my trolling on the talk page; I thought I got carried away. I will repost my comment in a more polite and formal manner. And since you're so keen on cleaning up Wikipedia, why don't you go remove the rest of the trolling on that talk page? =)

Edited my trolling to a suggestion. And of course it is relevant. This is an encyclopedia, a collective body of facts. My opinion is that you are taking such aggressive action towards me, because you're a fan. This is very objective of you. If something like a movie, band, etc, is largely disliked or critisised, it is noted. Besides my contibution wasn't hateful at all, everything I wrote was fact. And leave my profile alone, I'll do whatever I want with it. I am no vandal, I have been editing wikipedia before you hit your teens. If you keep taking such objective action I will report you to an administrator for deleting text and fact without proper reason; aka, vandalism.--Mudel 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28music%29#Backlash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlee_simpson#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_III#Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Anger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Federline#Musician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_%28film%29#Reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Lohan#Media_spotlight

Here are some more negative opinions, don't forget to edit them out to only leave the good ones. --Mudel 18:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: What's This?

Heh. A lot of blocked users tend to turn their talk pages into a makeshift "personal sandbox." They can't hurt anything, in there, they're basically trapped. Interfering may only spark their anger and encourage more disruption. You're more than welcome, of course, to ask for a second opinion. :) Luna Santin 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, too true. I've got a Google Alert set up on my username, so I tend to notice when I get blogged, too. ;) Luna Santin 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Alerts is a service they've set up; you can set it up to send you email when Google finds new results for given search terms. That can be useful to watch topics you're interested in (or in my case, to find out what random people happen to say about me). See here. Being "blogged" is just shorthand for having somebody write a blog entry about me, or something I've done (say, "Luna Santin blocked me the other day, and he is a big meanie" is a common theme.) Luna Santin 02:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez article

Thank you for the objective and positive feedback you've provided to us "newbies". You critiques were delivered with professionalism, no attacks and lots of positive feedback, while encouraging us users to use the Wikipedia guidelines. My work here is done. All the best! JournalSquareNYC 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew you were a separate user, but unfortunately, all of the other users are either one person or are several people working in concert and acting as if they're independent. It's too bad, but the bottom line is that we keep the article clean and NPOV; any help you can offer there, particularly in getting the other editors to understand what is and is not appropriate here, would be appreciated. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User page

I guess I deleted it because I couldn't decide what to use my page for, and now that I figured out what I'm going to use it for, it's back. Pink moon 1287^{(email|talk|user)} 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Saving Jane

I added some things. Va girl2468 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

SiLaw7

Yup :) Jammy Simpson | Talk | 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's appreciated. Thanks. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Big shock there

Classic new-user behavior - their article is under scrutiny, so they lash out at another article. I'm quite curious to see what the checkuser comes back with. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page! I've found another similarity: we're both fans of Aly & AJ and have made edits to their article before. That's interesting that we both have the same birthday; I've never met anyone with my exact birthday before. Baberlp 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding sections to Mario Frangoulis

It's not like it could make it worse.... KP Botany 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it may not look like one, but.... KP Botany 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow? Well, you're obviously nicer than I am. I think they're all the same. Still, the people and the company are worthy enough of an article, if a brief one, that it doesn't have to be pure crap, so I appreciate your taking time with them. One of her/their biggest arguments is that other articles on Wikipedia are equally crummy. The day I get paid for producing something equally as crummy as something else, I know I've found my slacker dream job. Cheers, KP Botany 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but technically "piece of crap" isn't a proper basis for deletion. It should be tagged and brought up to standards. I do realize that some articles, such as these, are so difficult to read that one sometimes assumes they written as a prank, but, you know, assume good faith. I've never heard of the bulk of small theater groups around the country, but most have at least enough local press, and credible background information for their members to merit a page--although a much better page than these, and I do feel like I'm doing their publicity work without pay, which is somewhat clouding my normally sweet-as-honey demeanor. KP Botany 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The check user has not been done yet. It's at WP:RCU I think, or go to the wrong page WP:CU which has a link to it at top. If they are all the same account, and since they all use the same poor writing style and intermix words from others, it seems likely, they should all be blocked for stacking the vote for the keep for the Chelsea Opera Company page. I'm also tired of listening to every one of them speak poorly of another editor, Mr. Darcy, and ganging up on him just because there are other article on Wikipedia that need work--thanks for seconding this particularly point on the one page, that all articles with poor work should be properly tagged. KP Botany 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I get really irritated by users like this, and have to keep my temper in check, and, most important, we all have to weigh the value of the articles to Wikipedia first. The articles, at least some of them, do belong. I'm sure they'll turn on me and you soon enough, you first I'm guessing. Can we get a pool going? It would be nice if someone made some money on this. Leah reverted my changes to Chelsea Opera Company, leaving my text, at her level of organization. I reverted, but suggested she should do the deletions she added. Check my current revision when you get a moment. The introductory paragraph should give all the general background information, rather than being chopped up just because the producers are also performers. See what you think. KP Botany 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should give general information, and that's what this does, but it's more specific because it's such a short article. This is the fundamental information about a small theater group, its artistic director, founding members, location, main performers. I don't know what check user does. However, since they are write exactly alike (none of my siblings and I do), it seems likely, and I think since they used these sock puppets to stack the vote they should all be banned, in my opinion. I hate the extra work that stuff like this makes for Wikipedia. I swear this encyclopedia would be done already if not for the constant vigilence needed to deal with stuff like this. KP Botany 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Mr. Darcy's page: Now they're posting solicitation notices on article talk pages.[1][2] I apologized to him for misconstruing his blatant solicitation of donations as just what it was, though. KP Botany 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I could have been nicer about it, too, and should have been once I started getting attacked--but that last bit about posting the imperatives for charitable donations then denying the intent and blaming it on an unasked question was just a bit much. It was a lot of work, too, to get crapped on like I did--and I probably won't do it again. Still, the Wikipedia article end result is more important, and people should be more careful when they're trying to represent others on a venue as public as Wikipedia. I wouldn't want any of the small theater groups I work with to be represented in public by people so contentious. You did good edit work, though, and were very tolerant of the situation, considering. It has been nice meeting you, and I look forward to editing with you again on something interesting in a different way. KP Botany 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: A User To Block

Hm. Blocked that one. I'll try to keep an eye out for anything else, of that sort, but let me know if I miss anything pertinent. Luna Santin 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Brachyura

Maybe it was you, but I was feeling it, after spending two hours researching their unspelled, ungrammatical titles for various organization to link them properly. Still, remain calm, what I told you before still counts, the articles themselves are within Wikipedia's venue and deserve to be better than what was served up. KP Botany 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message to KPBotany

No, I was not referring to your talkpage when I mentioned Kp's Brachyuraness. I hadn't seen your page until just now. I was referring to his/her comments on Mr Darcy's page, where those editor's spelling and writing style was disparaged. And for the record, I am aware of the ANI discussions, the Afds and the userchecks relating to the editors and articles they work on. I don;t want to address the votestacking issue, but I will say I think they are editing in good faith, and as such, deserve to be treated with politeness, even if they try the patience of a saint. Jeffpw 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no one ever accused me of being a saint. The articles were unreadable, which is how they came to anyone's notice in the first place. With the type of arguments they offered, the multiple accounts, the vote stacking and the editor shopping they could have taken one minute to read what they wrote instead. And, if instead of seeking to take down everyone they disagreed with in the least, they worked on improving the article, none of this would have come up to begin with. I was the one, by the way, who urged everyone else who was being treated rudely by these editors to consider that the articles did belong in Wikipedia and focus on improving them. One editor with some horrid grammar and spelling errors, no big deal, but this type of attacking editors who improve the article, do the research, and make it readable was a bit too much for me. I'll think I'll go on to just voting to delete when I see this next time. KP Botany 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody said you were treating anybody with disrespect, Acalamari. Please don't read anything into my message I did not say. And since I know KPBotany will be reading this, too, crabbiness seems an extremely minor transgression in my book. Sorry if my characterization offended you. You admitted above that you were feeling it, I am merely suggesting that you let a bit show. I already said that these particular editors could try the patience of a saint, so it's not surprising. Let's just move on, ok? Jeffpw 08:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all becoming clear now

I am beginning to see for myself what problems you and others had with that group of editors. I spent hours cleaning that Rodriguez article up, and now I am being reverted with ungrammatical changes. <sigh> no good deed goes unpunished. Jeffpw 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping it would work better for you than for me or for Acalamari or for Mr. Darwin, but realistically he created 8 sock puppets and attacked people who made the article readable, denied everything he did, then reverted every change that anyone made, even after agreeing the change was necessary and the article was better with that change. Unfortunately the closer you look at what is going on, the more you realize the stated intent and what is going on are not very close together. KP Botany 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Message to LesAziez

Acalamari, thanks for the welcome message. My own contribution to the Wikipedia:New user log ended after my signature, and someone else added a note underneath it that I suspect you were responding to. I'm well aware this isn't anything like My Space and there is no "friends list." I just wanted to clear that up to avoid a tarnished reputation. Cheers --LesAziez 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Message to KitLouise

Thanks so much! I couldn't figure out how to do it. --LtlKty 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1990 births on your User Page

Hi Acalamari. Will you please change the "1990 births" category on your User Page to "Wikipedians born in 1990". The 1990 births category is for articles, not Wikipedians. Thanks. --EarthPerson 15:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the category from my User Page. However, I am not going to add "Wikipedians born in 1990" because it would probably ruin the clean look of the page. I'm trying to keep the User Page as clean and as neat as possible so I'm not told to remove material from it. Don't forget to warn other Users who also used the "1990 births" category as well. Acalamari 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. It does looks clean and neat.  :) I will let others know. --EarthPerson 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations and CNs

.. don't have spaces between the punctuation or the request, please stop adding spaces. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

.. wait, you misunderstand me: [3] <- I'm talking about that, adding a space between punc. and the fact template. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, your edits to the List of Starfleet starships ordered by class where good (I've reinstated them for you) -- however just remember we don't space between the punctuation, i.e: Some text. is correct, Some text. is not. Hope this helps :)! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, please do, your punctuation fixes are good :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism to Amanda Michalka

They're still at it, adding info about Amanda Michalka dating one of the Jonas brothers. Should we continue reverting the page or try to have it secured from vandals again? -Rosepuff12 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

People born in 1990

Yeah, I noticed that you had. That's really why I stood down and removed mine as well :) But just because we are not famous people per se, that does not mean that we are still not 'people born in 1990', right? You never know, one day we might be Wikipedia article-worthy, and then we'd have places on that list :D How have you been then? Baberlp 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA troll

Oh yes, I think they're all one person. I guess one little side benefit of them targeting the RfAs is we've managed to pop off a number of sleeper accounts we didn't know about. I noticed when blocking and tagging that a couple had been used before and had warnings on their pages. There was one account, Blotchun (talk · contribs), which I found quite curious as the talk page was full of autoblock unblock requests and would seem to tie them into the "briefs vandal". I just went through and indefinitely blocked all of them, but if you notice one I might have missed, just let me know. Sarah 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a case concerning these accounts with requests for checkuser which can confidentially access the records and check whether these accounts were created at the same IP or not. It doesn't always work but perhaps it will be helpful. Newyorkbrad 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

I'm sorry but I don't understand what your message to me saying "I didn't add it" means. Maria202 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Removing that sentence had nothing at all to do with you and I'm sorry you thought it did. I saw the edit but didn't even pay attention to who made it. Kelly has great sales and there really is no need to make comparisons between the former Idol contestants. They should each stand on their own merits and as far as encyclopedic entries go the articles should be about the subject and leave the competition to the show. Maria202 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Thank you for your "pre-emptive" apology, being as how I have not actually read your latest comments yet. :) I am not easily offended. I like lively debate, opinionated debate. I just think most of it should be confined to the talk page in the hopes of gaining concensus, instead of having an Edit Jihad on the article itself (you might notice that I have actually written very little in this article - I learned the hard way from edit wars in other articles). Now, go, and sin no more. And I'll try and do the same. :) Wahkeenah 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've never actually talked to a squid before. :) Wahkeenah 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, squids. Like all or most of the critters in their general family, they are cursed by tasting good. Humans consume little squids and whales consume big ones. And I expect that if a whale could figure out how to batter-fry a giant squid, it would do so. As it is, it has to settle for the "sushi" version. Wahkeenah 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion about {{vandal}}

I have moved our discussion to here as it seems a better venue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Acalamari 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the matter is resolved, I will add the recognition of {{userlinks}} to my bot tonight, and in the future when you want to assume good faith while making a report you can use that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just posted a message on WP: AIV Talk. Acalamari 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Editor Review

Hey, we can't all love great music. Some have to settle for the... you know.. ;) Once again, thanks for your contributions, have a good day. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Awful Turkey

I only came across the username recently when it popped up in one of the page in my watchlist. I was not sure myself either, this is why I asked for a second opinion. Thanks, Asterion^talk 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. No problem. Acalamari 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Encounter

Thanks for your message. I became aware of him when he emailed [email protected] asking us to unblock him. It's all rather curious. Don't feel bad about what's happened...none of it is your fault or anything. And don't let it put you off welcoming new editors. Keep up the good work. :) Sarah 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari, sorry for the delay replying. I don't really understand why you are wondering about negative consequences and whether other editors will hold your involvement in the User:Dr. Stephen J. Krune III incident against you. I, and most of the admins involved, went to the page because Krune emailed the Wikipedia Unblock mailing list asking to be unblocked...that had nothing to do with you, so I don't understand why you're worried people will blame you for bringing it to our attention. Dr Krune was the one who brought it to our attention. Anyway, I looked at your edit count and you're currently on 1429, with only 530 to the mainspace and 148 to Wikipedia-space. Most people who get through RfAs these days have upwards of around 5,000 edits. I don't imagine you'd be considering a request for adminship in the immediate future and so I really wouldn't worry about what happened the other day. If you had an RfA sometime down the track, I doubt anyone would remember it, let alone want to bring it up in an RfA. However, I would really recommend, in future, if an admin asks you to stop replying to a troll, that you stop. Continuing to reply to trolls doesn't do anything but feed them, as it did in that case. Sarah 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, the talk page of that account has been deleted now so all your edits have been deleted as well. The only way someone could check what you said on that page would be if the page was undeleted (very unlikely) or an admin reviewed the deleted contents (also very unlikely). Even if it was undeleted, I don't recall seeing you do anything that would be an impediment to adminship, so I really wouldn't give it another thought if I were you. Hope that helps answer your questions. Sarah 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)