User talk:Acalamari/Archive K

Creepy
Wowza, can't say I have had messages like that for me! Sorry, just came across it on a random vandal patrol. Jmlk 1  7  09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just starting to RC patrol when I saw that diff. I thought it looked fimiliar and I realised I had one just like that. Random! Spellcast 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting infobox
Hi Acalamari, I've seen that you list the name of the songwriters with commas in the infobox of the article Don't Stop the Music. Is this part of the Wikipedia project? (I realized I kept spacing them because it looked more organized, but if what you do is a requirement, I'll stop spacing them.) However, please keep the small tags on the references. Everytime I see a reference without small tags, the sentence in which it's in has one and a half spacing between the sentence above it. (I don't know if you see this, but it's happening on my computer with Internet Explorer 7.) Thank you. Bull Borgnine 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on the type of infobox actually. In the song/single, musical artist, and album infoboxes, commas are normally used instead of breaks. I just fix the infoboxes when I see them. However, not all infoboxes use commas instead of breaks; there are infoboxes, such as infoboxes for starships, that use breaks and not commas. With the small tags and references, I don't think I'll be able to help you there; I use Internet Explorer 7 as well, but references and sentences seem fine to me. It may possibly be how something's set in your browser. Thanks for asking about infoboxes though. :) Acalamari 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
What a rotten trick!! I was just about to do that! Joke, just kidding.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh; sorry! :) It wasn't fun though; the last three opposes were "strong opposes", and sadly, more "strong opposes" probably would have come in had I not closed the RfA. Acalamari 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Full agreement. As I say, I was just about to do it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Small tagging references
Here's a still screenshot of the rare spacing between the lines. If that's normal to you, then I guess I'll keep using small tags. If it isn't then I should check my browser settings. But before I mess them up, I want to show you what I see, highlighted between the red brackets: Bull Borgnine 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry, that's perfectly normal, now I see what you mean. :) It happens on my computer and browser too. You don't have to worry about using the small tags anymore, and there is nothing wrong with your computer or your browser. :) Acalamari 01:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But it looks so much better with small tags!, oh well. Still, it's no against the rules, is it? Bull Borgnine 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anything that says the small tags can't be used, in all fairness. Acalamari 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

blocks
Huh. I'm not sure why I blocked for a year. I must have slipped when I was using the drop down menu. That thing is definitely making me lazy! Natalie 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's possible to press "one year" instead of "indefinite". It's too easy to do unfortunately! Acalamari 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Move button
When I created an account on simple english it had a move button there, but not here. Is it that only certain users have that power to move or is it an error? --LifeloverElena 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your account isn't four days old, so it hasn't reached the autoconfirmed level yet. When your account is four days old, you will be able to move pages, unless, of course, it's a page that's been protected so that only administrators can move them. Acalamari 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, Acalamari. --LifeloverElena 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) You'll also be able to edit semi-protected pages too when your account is four days old. Acalamari 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected? So like I can't edit now but when my account is four days old I can? --LifeloverElena 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can edit any page that has no form of protection. A semi-protected page is a page that's been protected to stop IPs and new users from editing it. When your account is four days old, you will be able to edit any semi-protected page. Fortunately, most articles aren't semi-protected so you shouldn't have to worry about anything. :) Acalamari 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NICOLE!
OMG You idiot! It took me an hour to wirte a full summary of the whatever u like music video and u just REVERT because its my name! and you also removed all my hard workj 2 split the pussycat dolls article! WHAT IS UR PROBLEM! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJH1992 (talk • contribs).
 * To begin with, I suggest you take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You'll find them to be a very good read.
 * Secondly, you continue to edit infoboxes so they become out of the standard format. You also edit section/sub-section titles to put in unnecessary capitalizing. These edits are disruptive, and don't need to be done. You've been asked several times by different users to stop. Again, I ask you, please stop these edits. As for the music video summary, you didn't add any sources, and it was original research. Acalamari 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollback at WP:RFPP
Good call on this rollback. You beat me to it. That IP looks very much like the IPs that triggered the sprotect on that page in the first place... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did a bit of research before using rollback though, just in case it was a good-faith mistake. When I looked up the article they mentioned, saw that that article had been recently protected due to BLP concerns, and after doing a WHOIS on the IP and one of the IPs that had been editing that article, it seemed rollback was appropriate in this case, as it was most likely that the person wanted to insert BLP-violating material back into the article. Acalamari 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoofer
Nice; welcome to the club. :) Acalamari 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm rather flattered :D.  Cat tleG irl  talk 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, isn't it? :) I've collected a few myself. Nice to know you have fans. Acalamari 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
... for those two semi-prots. It's frustrating not to be able to answer my own requests :-D - A l is o n  ☺ 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad to help. There were obvious BLP issues on those pages, so they both had to be semi-protected. I assume they were both pages that you'd done a lot of work on, as you requested that they be semi-protected? Acalamari 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Message
Could you send me a message so I could test out my monobook.css new message bar thing? Thank you so much! --LifeloverElena 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it works perfectly! --LifeloverElena 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad to help. Acalamari 22:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!
Protection clash.... I'm getting out of your way, I'm off to choir. :-) - Philippe &#124; Talk 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's so annoying! I quickly re-instated your protection. I think I mistakenly unprotected the page. At any rate, it's fixed now. :) Acalamari 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) Luk suh  03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the smile! :) Acalamari 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for you support in my RfA. It came as a success, out of my expectation. Don't hesitate to rebuke me if I mishandle the buttons. Best wishes. @pple 04:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome for the support! :) Thanks for the nice image too. I've also added the tag to your user page. Acalamari 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah
Ah I see, i'll remove it. Atomic Religione 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay; it's just best to wait until the candidate accepts. :) Acalamari 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speak of the devil..HE HAS ACCEPTED! Good thing i put the support on my clipboard, i'll just paste it back on ^^ Atomic Religione 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My nomination
Wow, to think I'd see the day... I gladly accept this nomination. :) // Decaimiento Poético  19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's excellent; just follow my instructions! :) Acalamari 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done and done. I have to thank you again for this. I'm so flustered right now, I can barely type. // Decaimiento Poético  19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith 3/7/07
I fail to understand how you describe the comment made in regards to Anna Nicole Smith on the date of 3/7/07 was in anyway nonsense/vandalism. In addition to the fact that it had source attached to it, it was also supported on the television. I DO NOT appreciate my additions to an article being disregarded as nonsense when I attach both a source, and the subject matter is obviously noted on television. I suggest you watch what you edit next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyswim (talk • contribs) 06:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * That edit was back in March. When I looked at the edit you mentioned, at the time I thought it was vandalism. Evidently, it was not vandalism; I apologize. Acalamari 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Amanda Michalka page
I've noticed that there has been a lot of vandalism over the past few days by IP users on the Amanda Michalka Page. They keep adding unencyclopedic info. Should we do anything about it? -Rosepuff12 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Rosepuff12, glad to see you're still around! :) As for Amanda Michalka, it still doesn't need protecting, and a request for it's protection at RFPP would be declined. In fact, keep it unprotected is more useful than having it semi-protected at the moment. Recently, there's been a vandal going around using different IPs adding loads of Wikilinks to a group of articles (the Michalka included), so keeping the page unprotected helps us spot that vandal so I or another administrator can block them. All we can do is just revert as usual. :) Acalamari 23:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:An IP's talk page
I've got Kelly's article on my watchlist and saw this IP's edit. Strange: they love their icon so much that they would vandalise their wikipedia article with their opinions. Sometimes I really don't get some of these "die-hard fans". :D AngelOfSadness  talk
 * I have it watchlisted too. :) Good work with your vandal-fighting and warning. Acalamari 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D AngelOfSadness  talk  00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Template: The Pussycat Dolls
You said, "Evidently you did not read my edit summary; I said there was no consensus on the talk page to rename it to "Template: Pussycat Dolls". I personally would like to see the template moved to "Template:Pussycat Dolls", but there is no consensus to do so, and there was mention of moving the article "Pussycat Dolls" back to "The Pussycat Dolls". Please move "Template:Pussycat Dolls" back to "Template:The Pussycat Dolls" for the time being, and then give input on the talk page. Thank you."


 * There might be no consensus about renaming the template, but there is no objection to renaming it either. If the page name is "Pussycat Dolls" why would the template name be different? If no one has objected to the move, then what's the problem? And the discussion on the talk page was left alone for a month. Do you want to reopen discussion on naming the template? Admc2006 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I want to apologize for my last message; I could have been a bit more civil. My apologies for that.
 * Secondly, a better idea would be for you to post a message on Template talk: Pussycat Dolls to mention your move. In all fairness, a major discussion is not needed, and you posting a message on that talk page mentioning your move will clear things up.
 * Again, sorry for the last message. Acalamari 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I will move the page back to the original name and post a message on the talk page suggesting the move. Admc2006 10:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannah who???
Oops! :) - A l is o n  ☺ 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...not to sound ignorant, but what am I supposed to be looking at? Acalamari 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nahh. I'm ignorant here. Thought we'd clashed on the prot. Move along folks, nothing to see here :) - A l is o n  ☺ 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! Okay! :) No, no, no; you're not ignorant! :) Acalamari 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Oh that’s perfectly alright, other administrators were not supportive either. Anyways my RfA is under the bridge and perhaps I may try again in the distant future. Thank you very much Acalamari for your considerate message 53180 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)53180.
 * Well, I hope you try again, but I do hope you'll as least wait for a few months first. :) Maybe even next time you'll get to have someone nominate you. :) Acalamari 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, you are so kind :) 53180 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)53180.
 * You're welcome. :) Acalamari 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, and you're welcome. :) Acalamari 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

 * No problemo. Also thank you for blocking 87.110.85.51. He was very much starting to get on my nerves :D AngelOfSadness  talk  22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; he's using different IPs, so keep and eye out for more. :) Acalamari 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will as I saw that he said it himself on NHRHS2010's talk page and he's back as 81.198.251.111 AngelOfSadness  talk  22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. :) Acalamari 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great but I'm sure he'll be back in no time. AngelOfSadness  talk  22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even get to reply to your last comment on my talk page the first time as he was making this edit to my talk page. I really hope he means it. AngelOfSadness talk  22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's not true, he will simply be blocked again. Acalamari 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool and you'll be the first person I go to(if that's ok :D) if he starts all that again. :D AngelOfSadness  talk  23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I will be if I'm online at the time. :) If not, send him to AIV! Acalamari 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Grand so, I will do exactly that if he returns to his ways AngelOfSadness  talk  23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert on my talkpage. I guess you were a good bit ahead of me when he returned. AngelOfSadness  talk  19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's back again as 78.84.71.71. It's starting to get really annoying having to revert his comments all the time. Any suggestions? AngelOfSadness talk  20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him again. I blocked six of his IPs yesterday, and Riana blocked one as well. Acalamari 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You'd think after two days he'd get the message but no. Hopefully he'll get bored soon and quit pestering me. AngelOfSadness  talk  20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, we'll see what happens; I think he said he'll be back, and it seems he is. Oh well, he'll just keep getting blocked. Acalamari 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to those vandals who never keep their word? Oh how I miss them!! AngelOfSadness talk  21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
I have not run across your ID for awhile. It looks like you've become an admin in the interim. Congratulations! And resist the temptation to say that, given your user ID plus your adminship, you now have your tentacles everywhere in wikipedia. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for the congratulations. :) I became an administrator on July 4; it was my second RfA. With coming across user IDs, I've seen you post a few times on Alison's talk page. Acalamari 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I used to be User:Wahkeenah. I just about quit in disgust last May, and then came back with a somewhat better attitude. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you came back. It would have been a shame for you to go. Acalamari 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I was encouraged at the time by several editors who said similar things to your comments. I figured it was worth a try again, and to take steps to avoid a similar situation in the future... one of which was to cut my watch list way back. Even then, problems can arise. But so far, mostly good. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) If things become a bit rough again, I'm sure a WikiBreak ranging from a day to a week will be helpful. :) Acalamari 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a few weeks ago I got into a stupid debate (again, about something not in my usual realm of watch items) and asked an admin to block me for 48 hours. That worked. And hopefully it won't happen again soon. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chester Bennington
Thanks for protecting the page. I've been reverting crap vandalism for a while now... Anyway, thanks a lot for that. Jay 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've also blocked a vandal who was vandalizing that page. Acalamari 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that too. Jay 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci
I cannot imagine why you removed the semi-protected status of this page. Every schoolkid on the globe uses it and twenty of them vandalise it every day!

--Amandajm 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was requested at RFPP that the page be unprotected. I have re-protected the article, as it seems it was getting heavily vandalized again. Thanks for telling me. Acalamari 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It's awfully tedious checking back through something like that to make sure nothing's been missed. Most of the vandalisation gets fixed promptly but sometimes there's been two or three in a row, and the "fixer" only fixes the last one. It took me six months to discover that some piggish person had deleted part of Fra Angelico! --Amandajm 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding
Good God, can you do something to translate this article into English? I don't even care if it's not Standard English, just some varient I can read to copyedit it. KP Botany 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS This notice is not limited to Acalamari. Anyone who knows who this is, can you please edit the article so it's readable, and remove peacockery, and make it English?  Also, BLP issues.  KP Botany 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right; it does need a lot of clean-up. :) I'll get around to doing it soon and I'll see what I can do. Acalamari 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't really figure her out from the google searches, it's all rather confusing--but I also can't figure out any reason she deserves such a crappy article.  There's something funny going on with the article's editors, also, but I think they're going to back off now that they realize I'm not trying to vandalize it--and that I'm onto them--so they shouldn't be an issue any more.  Stunning picture by David, also.  KP Botany 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just added a new section and new sub-sections, done some small comma/punctuation fixes, fixed a source, and removed some unsourced material. The article looks a bit better from those edits, but it still needs more work. As for the image, it seems to be yet another good image from David; I don't know how he does it, but he seems to get a lot of good images. Acalamari 23:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, much better already. I suspect David of treating "stars" like human beings--it's one of those things that goes a long way.  In many of his pictures the subject is looking directly at the camera, in a relaxed way, as if they're chatting with the photography--this makes for a very attractive picture.  It also gives depth to the subject's eyes in a way that these shoots at sponsored events seldom have, because the photographers are too disengaged from what they're doing.  KP Botany 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out on this. It's been an interesting battle since the article's inception. But we are Superwikipedians, fearless destroyers of unsourced statements, and skilled at massaging monstrosities into readable English!  Huzzah!&mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My editor review
Thank you for commenting in my edit review. I do not believe you were at all harsh. I really have nothing to "question" about your looking at my record. I would like to thank you so much for telling me what I have to work on. I will try to make you and Wikipedia proud of my record. Politics rule 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you plan to improve yourself. :) I'm also glad I didn't come across as harsh. I just wanted to let you know about those concerns, and how they would work terribly against you if you ran for adminship anytime soon. If you are a user who will respond positively to criticism and concerns, then you will ultimately make a fine administrator. :) Acalamari 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey! Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. I never even noticed it until I checked my history! Keep up the good work! Phgao 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the revert. :) Acalamari 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Montana
Isn't sprotection until December 3rd a little excessive? I've watched the page for about a year now, and a lot of the anon edits are in good faith. I acknowledge that semi-protection right now is the way to go, but is it possible if you could shorten the date a little?  bibliomaniac 1 5  Tea anyone? 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'll drop it to a bit over a month then. It's just that the user who requested it's protection at RFPP said to protect indefinitely, and I didn't think that was necessary, so 3 months seemed like a better time. However, if you think that's too long, I'll drop it now. Acalamari 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your second RfA
Thank you for your advice. You are entirely correct. Anyway, there's no need for a lot of new admins. The current team is doing a great job already :-) Happy editing! -- Boricu æ  ddie  19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the advice; you don't really want opposition such as "last RfA was a month ago". Give it two or three weeks, then answer the questions, accept, and submit it. You can accept at anytime, so there is no limit on how how long you can wait to accepting an RfA nomination. As for new admins...there's always be a need for them. :) Acalamari 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Something OTHER than calamari.
I have to admit-- I saw your user name and kind of giggled. But, that's a good thing. I made it a point to check your user page to see if you really were talking about squid. Turns out you're not referencing squid, but instead something other than squid. So, I figured I'd give you something other than squid. So here-- something other than squid. ...well, actually it's just a reason to give out pseudo-awards for people who, like me, deep down cheered on the empire. :P -- slakr \ talk / 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (aka: guy who is also not a calamari).
 * Heh, heh, thanks for the image. :) A lot of users have asked me about my username before. It seems to be somewhat notable, though I wouldn't say it's as notable as Can't sleep, clown will eat me. :) Acalamari 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though he doesn't mention it on his user page, I have a sneaky suspicion he chose that name based off of the 18th century painter, Harry Johannes Pennywise-Clown, who was known for his occasionally cannibalistic bouts of insanity. Rumor is he was killed recently, but that's only rumor. :P  -- slakr \ talk / 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * You're welcome for the support. :) I hope your next RfA passes. Just listen to what the opposition said, and return to RfA in three months or so. Acalamari 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of whatever, whatevers
Wow, that was a fast speedy on my joke article. Sorry if it caused any extra distress on your part. I was reading the AFD at and when I clicked on the example link I just couldn't help it, it was too funny at the moment. I appreciate you not jumping on my talk page over it too. I got two bumps on the talk page instantly about the deletion. Catch you later. --Torchwood Who? 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no need for me to say "please don't create pages like that again", as you had already been told about it, and I know you won't create any more pages like that again. :) As for deleting the page, no, it didn't cause me any problems at all. Acalamari 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Hey, no problem. I had to deal with some imposters myself, leading to the creation of a few doppelganger accounts.- Gilliam 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you very much for your support and congratulations. I appreciate them both. -Chunky Rice 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) Acalamari 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
I should have said earlier, but I've sent one. Acalamari 22:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Checked spam filters but not received.......? Pedro | Chat  10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd; I've sent another then. Acalamari 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed you! Pedro | Chat  17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded. :) Acalamari 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And replied - got it finally - thank you very much BTW for the offer! Pedro | Chat  17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I received no response. Acalamari 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll resend it now... wierdness abounds! Pedro | Chat  19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still nothing; what about trying the Wikipedia-based send again? Acalamari 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Pedro | Chat  19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally got it! I'll reply later, if that's okay. Acalamari 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs! Pedro | Chat  19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * You're welcome; glad it passed. :) Acalamari 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

unprotect on Apple, Inc.
Could you unprotect? It's bad form to leave an article semi-protected or protected for longer than necessary. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected it for a month, and that semi-protection will expire on the 27 of September. I'll change the expiry date so that it ends on the 10 of September (less than two days from now). Is that satisfactory? Acalamari 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Snarry
I am not sure I understand how this falls under CSD, if I remember correctly neologisms are not covered. It looks like I conflicted with you in that speedy deletion request. I was unaware of this until someone informed me that the CSD request I declined (and you approved) had been readded to CSD. Could you explain? Thanks, Prodego  talk  21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My error; . I'd better stop deleting for now and take a rest if I made a mistake like that. Acalamari 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very quick reply :) Prodego  talk  21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a quick reply. :) I had already posted the message on your talk page before you posted your message. :) Anyway, I had seen the Snarry page become a blue link, and then I checked the history. I saw you had recreated the page, and realized I had made an error with the deletion. Not a huge error fortunately, but one that I shouldn't have been made in the first place; I mistook it for a blog or forum. As such, I'd better take a rest from deleting for now. My apologies. Acalamari 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, the CSD rules are slightly ridiculous sometimes. As for the quick reply, take a look at this. Prodego  talk  21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've also already restored the history. Thanks for that, I was going to do it myself, but it seems that's unnecessary now. :) Acalamari 21:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I just went ahead and did it after you contacted me, hopefully it will be gone soon enough anyway. Prodego  talk  21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserve one of these, so here you are. Hope to see you again, Prodego  talk  22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Much appreciated! :) Acalamari 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

mojoPortal page deleted
This page was deleted as spam? I created the page as a starting point for a mojoPortal page that should be a part of the category, 'open source content management systems', after I noticed that no mention of mojoPortal was present. The plan was to continue editing it and add in the info dialog from a page like DotNetNuke, a similar project, so mojoPortal would show up under the proper categories.

What should I do? It would be useful to have the info about mojoPortal in wikipedia and I'm trying to fill the gap in the information by adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmorgan@alum.wpi.edu (talk • contribs) 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was clearly advertising in the form that it was in, and therefore, was deleted as spam. If you want to make sure the article doesn't get deleted, you should read WP:WEB so the page doesn't get deleted again. Thanks. Acalamari 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted to make sure I knew more about why it was deleted before I recreated it. I'll try to make sure the next page is much more complete. This should take it from being just a link to a page to something with actual content. Cmorgan@alum.wpi.edu 01:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Acalamari 02:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Me
I would like to thank you for all your support here, but just to tell you, I am thinking about leaving Wikipedia. God Bless you for all your support.  Pat Politics rule!  19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't leave, Politics rule; sometimes things came be rough here, but that's not a reason to leave. You just have to rise above it all. Seriously, don't go. Acalamari 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I am very discourgaed by the putting up of deletion of one of my pages.  Pat Politics rule!  20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your strong support!  Pat Politics rule!  22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. :) Acalamari 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Bits
You are most kind. Thank you! Pedro | Chat  22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Acalamari 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith vandalism
Looks like there's an anonymous user who thinks Anna is still alive?!? I reverted it back your last edit.--Bamadude 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weird edits; nice one for the revert. :) Acalamari 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert
No problem. I'm always ready to revert vandalism. :) NKSCF 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jordan semi-protection
Thanks for semi-protecting Jordan. Smart_Viral(talk) 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) The semi-protection will expire in a week, though that should be (hopefully) enough time to calm the vandals down. Acalamari 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Renewable energy
Unfortunately the person most responsible for disrupting the page is not blocked by semi-protection. I do not recommend a higher level of protection to fix this, I just wanted to note that your protection of renewable energy is moot, other than stopping me from fixing it. 199.125.109.20 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the page because it was requested at WP:RFPP, and that request was to have the page semi-protected to stop various vandals from editing the page, not you. The semi-protection will end on September 17, though I may drop it a couple of days if you wish. I had no plans on increasing the protection, as that would block everyone. Acalamari 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I can wait until the 17th. It isn't a page I edit very often anyway. The biggest dispute is the non-renewable fans (oil/coal/nuclear) wanting to edit every other sentence to say that renewable resources are not as good as whatever their favorite flavor is. It is absurdly disruptive. 199.125.109.73 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 17 is four days away. I'm hoping by then the vandalism will have settled, and you won't have to worry about it being semi-protected again. Acalamari 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankee!
It certainly was, sweetie - thank you for spotting it, and correcting it! :) (btw, isn't being able to edit protected pages wonderful? ;) While I'm visiting you, I wish to thank you dearly for your kind email, which I replied a couple of days ago, and there's absolutely no need that you reply yourself. Suffice to say here, that you made a bigger difference than you know. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad it was a good edit. :) Yes, it's nice to edit protected pages, as long as those edits help other people (and of course, the encylopedia itself). Regarding the E-mail, I actually am going to respond, don't worry; I just haven't quite got around to doing it yet. :) Acalamari 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * You are welcome for the support. Glad you passed. :) Acalamari 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)