Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're looking at things from a technical standpoint, then yes, I believe they could -- admins can unblock themselves. But, from a policy standpoint, doing so is widely frowned upon and can lead to an instant desysopping depending on circumstances. x.x – Luna Santin (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be of service, as always. Wish I could be a little quicker, sometimes, but I check about as often as life and work allow. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. People are running bots these days to remove YouTube links as well, hehe, apparently it's slightly controversial, :\. Matthew
I am not a troll. Please choose your words more judiciously.
Thank you. 141.154.51.166 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing me! I'll be sure to put to good use what you've taught me. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And another.
They were from Nukleoptra. I have moved them to my barnstars subpage; and have thanked the user. Acalamari 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :)Nukleoptra 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please look at my page!
Partapdua2 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You are a dark lord of the sith? DOTA fanatic 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I'm sure you started that RFCU in good faith. Some people get a bit testy sometimes. If in the future you are marginally concerned about a username, you can always ask a few RFCU regulars for their opinion before you start the process. I did that recently (see User talk:Flyguy649#Username query for their responses) and it seemed to work well. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, i felt like my response could have been a little harsh. In general, we are all suppose dto Assume Good Faith. By stating that something is not bad faith (which most of us assume or should be assuming it is not), most of us start looking around wondering who did assume bad faith? (Just the way it was stated seemed accusatory (which I know it is not)). I think that stating it is not in bad faith is a bit reduntant though (in my personal opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I could go elsewhere to ask but I was just here so I thought I might ask: if you forget to log out when you turn off the computer what bad could happen?Nukleoptra 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just ask them if they need help with anything every once and awhile. I start out by directing them to the tutorial, it helps and suggestbot helps out a lot too. What ever they need help with, which isn't a lot for most of them, just help them along. Darthgriz98 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, however those singles were unsoruced and not enough accurate information. --A Raider Like Indiana 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Acalamari, I thought I should let you know that the Anna Nicole Smith article is now unprotected. It seems like a sufficient enough time has passed to allow all users access to editing it again. Hopefully any incoming vandalism will not be unmanageable. Keep up the great work and best of luck on your RFA :). I have a feeling it will pass with flying colors.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! None of this would have been possible without your help though. See ya around RC! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Phew ... well, the kerfuffle has died down on my RFA now and it looks like yours is just starting.
I just wanted to say thank you so very much for nominating me in the first place. It was kinda shocking when it happened, as I was going through editor review at the time!! Anyways - I was honoured and delighted that both yourself and Ryan had such faith in me. I really, really appreciate all you've done over the past week or so, including your tireless updating of tallies, etc. Thank you so much! - Alison☺
If the names were "probably acceptable", why would you have sent them to RFCN in the first place? {{UsernameConcern}} simply suggests to the user that "some users" may find their username objectionable, and they can avoid this going any further by voluntarily changing their name. This does happen, as most people are happy to follow guidelines once they are made aware of them. If they are sure they want that username, and/or believe it would be acceptable (ie, they disagree that the username would be objectionable), then it goes to RFCN. for further comment and input from the community. That's what an RFC is - a more formal way of assessing and resolving a potential issue when simple discussion has not been able to resolve it. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you are getting a lot of barnstars! If you get to many you can keep them all on your sub-page but only show some of them on you main page by using the <noinclude> tags. I have set mine up to only show the 3 at the bottom: User:HighInBC/Barnstars. But then, maybe you like them the way it is. Good luck with you RfA! HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --wL<speak·check> 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Acalamari! How are you doing? Basking in the sun and feeling good having so many barnstars? I think you have really earned the barnstar for Random Acts of Kindness! I have two questions to my "godfather", - to you. I would like to have my edits counted. How is that done and where? My second question: Is there a way to bookmark useful sites on the user page? --Tellervo 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried about my user page Acalamari. Have you ever seen? It's so junky, no one would ever visit, much less vandalize, although an editor recently stole some things from it for her own page because she thought they were so cool. I'll post the link to it some day, it's pretty funny. KP Botany 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For a full list of pornstar deletions, see WP:P*/D. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to: User talk:Ben#Question.
I noticed you edited User:Acalamari/Warning Removals. Why made you decide to visit it? I'm not bothered or anything. I'm just curious because the proposal was withdrawn sometime ago. :) Acalamari 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Acalamari, thank you for welcome! I read on your page you love Shakira: I love her too, and if you're interested, go to Italian article about her; I wrote it, and now it's a featured article on it.wiki!! However, I hope to improve my English so that I'll be able to contribute more on en.wiki too! Good night!!--Max 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Somebody, who thinks he is smarter than what he is in reality, has removed from the Cicero article the sections in "Early life" about Cicero's philosophical studies in his youth. What he/she/they do not realize is that Cicero's importance at present has much to do with his philosophical works. (I am going later to write about Cicero's own philosophical works, - if I ever get over all these reverts after reverts!?) My text about Cicero's studies in philosophy in his youth you can find in "Revision as of 10:01, 21 March 2007".Can you tell me how to add this text into the present article?? Or can you put these sections back into the article? Or should I ask the Help Desk? Greetings --Tellervo 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your sympathetic answer, - I will ask somebody else! Do not worry, I will manage. --Tellervo 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm glad to see that you aren't discouraged by my comments, or by the comments of those who aren't supporting your RfA. I hope that my comments have been helpful, or at least considerate, and I'm glad to see that you are treating this RfA as a learning experience, no matter how it turns out. Best wishes, --Kyoko
I found quite a bit of vandalism, but I can't find the warning templates to put on the vandals' talk pages. Do you know where these templates are located? A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
24.39.181.168 has vandalised again, after someone gave 24.39.181.168 a last warning. Could you block him? A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I miss all these? It's like people wait until I stop editing and they can reasonably assume I'm off line. Thanks for keeping an eye out for me! Natalie 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your clean-up on the Shania Twain page. Much appreciated. --Renrenren 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you imagine you'll be resolving? Chris conveniently expunged all discussion of his questionable role in the matter from his own talk page through his move-delete, and blanked the user's talk page, hiding any critical comments from anyone to see. Thus, there's little point in a months' old issue being brought back up. --LeflymanTalk 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:So...you're saying that there's little point in bringing a month's old issue back up. If that's the case, why even bring it up? As I said, I'm not bothered by the fact you opposed me; that's a non-issue. Acalamari 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you took my comments at your RfA as personal -- they were intended to point out a tendency towards over-reaction, which you may acknowledge can be problematic in an admin. I definitely see you an up-and-coming editor, who just needs a bit more seasoning and experience before aiming for adminship. Best wishes, --LeflymanTalk 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On this occasion, your nomination for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, more users supported your nomination than opposed it, and many of those opposing are simply keen to see more of your work! Warofdreams talk 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, how come you spend so much time counting all the vandalism to Natalie Erin's user page, and ferociously guarding it like a knight in white armor? Sounds like someone is in love! Owner of boats 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You said: "First of all, I want to say that I just reverted vandalism from your user page; and from the sandbox, as the kind user who vandalized your user page then attacked you in the sandbox. Secondly, I want to thank you for your support in my RfA. Your support was a nice surprise, and your advice was very helpful to me. Thank you."
Award moved to my awards subpage.
No problem, if you keep up the good work you've been doing you'll certainly have my support if you decide to go up for RfA again, which I hope you will (-:! Matthew 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar. I have added it to my collection. :) Cheers, Sarah 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have given our friendly neighbourhood vandals a new hobby: . :-) WjBscribe 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Award moved
-- Feel free to revert this ;) A Traintalk 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Dang, you're still much more popular than I am. Don't avoid all the situations, evaluate people's comments and decide what you think you should do to become a better Wikipedia editor and potential administrator--not everyone who criticizes you is always right. Frankly, I think you'd be wasted as an admin, but you do edit in areas where there are few admins, but high activity, and you could contribute well as an admin, I have no doubt. If you become an administrator I will probably have to find someone else to dump those little obscure intellectual biographies on, though, and that will irritate me, as I've cut back, enough that finding new victims, er editors, will be difficult.
I personally think being a great editor is a step up from being an admin, and you are the former, imo. KP Botany 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Acalamari. I didn't think you were offended but I don't think it would make you biased if you were offended. My own RfA was relatively painless (160/4/1) but it was still a pretty rugged experience and I think it would be quite natural to feel hurt when they don't succeed. As far as the age thing goes, I personally don't agree with using age as a criteria for assessing someone for adminship but I know that other people think it is important that admins be of a certain minimum age. I think it's a rather silly criteria myself since anyone can say they are whatever they want and we would have no clue if a 14-year-old, for example, claimed they were 30. I don't like using arbitrary criteria like age, gender, education, etc for evaluating candidates (believe it or not, I have seen someone opposed for being female), however, I feel that people participating in good faith should feel free to apply whatever admin criteria they feel is appropriate. I didn't agree with that editor's oppose rationale, but I wasn't upset or unimpressed or whatever. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Cheers, Sarah 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you get a chance, would you see if you can responsibly edit this article with the sources listed and the Eurovision Song Contest web link? Also the article about the band's song 100% Te Ljubam should be merged into the band's article page. I see not rush on this, even though the XXL article is up for deletion. KP Botany 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess if you're testing blocks, and manage to autoblock yourself, it's no issue. It's hard to see anybody making a big deal out of it, anyway. ;) Although test-blocking is usually discouraged on shared IPs for just that reason, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your ultimate support in my recent RfA. I accept your apology without reservation or hesitation; you said what you thought was right, and this is all that can be expected of any wikipedian. I am sorry that it was felt that you were not yet quite ready for the mop and bucket; I look forward to supporting your next application. Please notify me when you do apply - doing so will, in the light of this request, not be seen as canvassing.--Anthony.bradbury 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your interesting question. I've never experienced any need to clear my cache when my rights have been changed - although I expect that returning to a previously viewed page might require a refresh. As the rights are held in a Wikipedia database, any pages newly served from Wikipedia should correctly display your new rights. Warofdreams talk 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Acalamari, sorry about the outcome of your RfA, hang in there, glad to see you are handling what had to be a dissappointing situation in such a mature and graceful way. Please take the suggestions offered to heart and not see them as criticism but in a constructive way (which you seem to be doing, props!). IMHO I would adivise that you continue with the good works & positive intentions for a few more months and I think that many of those who opposed this go-round will support the next time. Good luck! Wikidenizen 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Glad I could help :-) Will (aka Wimt) 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you get vandalized 1/2 a time? I'd have thought that was a whole-number function. Meanwhile, I'm nowhere near that number. I'll have to try harder. To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, I can't get any disrespect. :) Wahkeenah 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Acalamari. Thanks for your comments! A few good words can go a long way. That's too bad that you didn't pass your RfA, but it seems that the main problem was the "time factor." Thanks again. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.