Hello. I believe my Article was notable enough this time however it is deleted without giving me any satisfactory explanation. The procedure i have followed: Make draft, join chat and spend 1 whole day to edit and compose excellent article based on suggestion and edits by experts at the chat, submit draft, draft accepted, draft reviewed and edited by WikiProject_Video_games editor and completely published. Then i ask chat again about isn’t this too much edit? then primefac opens speedy delete then it is deleted without giving me any explanation in matter of minutes. If you check the issue i appreciate ty very much : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG . And there were not any discussion it was deleted immediately. One more notice: I checked same genre games articles and majority of them have way more less authority references and even some have 0 references. Thank you very much for your help. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in the interest of transparency: nearly a dozen editors, administrators included, have explained all of this to him at great length. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reply to Quinto Simmaco no one explained me why my article deleted immediately without any debate after it has been excellently writtenOnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...We discussed this with you, both before and after deletion, for a couple of hours in IRC. You've also received replies from the administrator who deleted your page (who was also in the channel), and I would imagine you've also heard from a few of those 20+ administrators you've now canvassed. The article has now been deleted four times, SALTed, and this is becoming disruptive. You were cautioned about trying the community's patience on this issue, in addition to having nearly every aspect of this process discussed with you, at length, in real time; saying that this wasn't the case is disingenuous. We understand that you're upset, and we do sympathise. But honestly, given your edit history under both of your usernames, I'm not entirely convinced you're here to build an encyclopedia, beyond promoting your game. I'd advise that you edit other articles where you do not have a COI, and contribute constructively, if you indeed are here to do so. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Point has been rendered moot by an indefinite block of the user.

Apologies for this interruption on your talk page, especially regarding an issue with which you weren't involved, but simply canvassed regarding. Hopefully there's no sockhunt to follow, but I would be extremely surprised if that didn't happen. Have a good day, Acalamari. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quinto Simmaco, it was fine, no worries; thanks for answering them for me. Hope you have a good day, too. :) Acalamari 17:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your inbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Anthony Bradbury, I've seen your e-mail; I'll have to think about your question for a day or two before I answer. Thanks. Acalamari 23:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agonise over it; it was a serious question but the issue is not life-threatening!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your talk page header stating you're busy so don't worry too much about this but if you get the chance, could you remove the move=sysop from Joseph McManners? I'd appreciate it, thanks — BranStark (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BranStark, done! :) Acalamari 18:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — BranStark (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There

Could you please comment on the issue I raised regarding a section on Aguilera's talk page. Your input would be much appreciated:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Aguilera

CJBXT720 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJBXT720, sorry for not replying to this until now. I'm happy with whatever improvements you'd like to make to the article; I haven't edited it much in recent months - I haven't even performed many small edits. Acalamari 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you, but as an administrator, would you mind merging the histories on this page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageofultron (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ageofultron, sorry for not replying to this earlier. Looks as though it was sorted out by Anthony Appleyard. Acalamari 22:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Acalamari, I came here to ask you for a favor. Can you put the Repentless article title in italics? It is the one bellow "talk", not in the opening sentence.--Retrohead (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retrohead, looks as though Dsimic did it for you. :) Acalamari 13:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Right, saw the request here and went ahead with adding {{Italic title}} to the article. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. Thanks.--MONGO 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO, I've responded. If you reply to me but I am slow to reply, it's because of my real-life workload over the next few days. Best. Acalamari 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up: The offending username is still visible in the edit itself. [1]. I suspect you meant to hide that from view as well. (If not, sorry for bothering you and feel free to ignore this message) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AddWittyNameHere, thanks for letting me know; I've hidden the revision text in addition to the edit summary. :) Acalamari 15:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're welcome! It's pretty easy to miss such things—you're certainly not the first I've seen make that mistake. Or the last.

Then again, it feels like (and probably not incorrectly, either) I've spent a significant portion of the past 36h hunting down diffs that needed revdel or oversight, reverting them, check if replicated anywhere by a on-wiki report, rmv from the list asap, reporting the offending edits & the edits/summaries of reports that had offensive usernames in them, check them, report the missed stuff, alert to new stuff, revert (if no one else was faster, that is), report. As though things weren't busy enough troll/vandal-wise before the mess at the Caitlyn Jenner article's talkpage... Oh well. In cases like this, typo-fixing and correcting dab-links and such can wait another day, and that's just about the only other stuff I do with any frequency anyway. Oh, and rambling on folks' talkpages, as is evident. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling is good. :) Good work with and thank you for your task of dealing with edits that need revdelling - it's a thankless job! Acalamari 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind rambling, but I know that not everyone has the patience for it. If you don't mind me rambling, I'll gladly ramble some more on your page.
As to reporting edits that need to be revdelled—and fighting vandalism in general—being a thankless job...to some degree, yes, but someone has to do it. Plus, in a fair few cases it has the net-positive of the trolls focusing on me next—something I consider much, much preferable over them hijacking central pages like ANI or bothering editors who can't really deal with it. Though of course for the moment they can't, since my userpage&talkpage are semi-protected for a bit. Unavoidable with the shit going down there yesterday, I'm afraid.
While I'm here anyway, could you keep half an eye on the Caitlyn Jenner talkpage every now and then? While the -trolling- is now mostly impossible due to the semi-protection (it certainly hasn't resurfaced yet, in any case, though the troll may simply be waiting for an account to get auto-confirmed), the mood there is starting to get decidedly unfriendly. Nothing quite severe enough to warrant admin action yet, I'd say—but enough that it would not at all surprise me if things go "boom" soon(ish). I suspect we'd all rather avoid a new Arbcom-case a la Chelsea Manning.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ramble away; it's fine here. :) I have watchlisted the Caitlyn Jenner article and am happy to look out for any trolling that might materialize.

Your user and talk pages are semi-protected...I remember the days when having that was actually a good thing, as it meant you were doing an excellent job at dealing with trolls and vandals. Maybe it's still that way, I don't know. Acalamari 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it still means that, I think—I just really can't be bothered by whatever nonsense trolls and vandals have to say about me, so it's easier to have them hang out and be reverted-and-blocked quietly on my talk/user pages, than to have them hijack central and highly visible places. Less people who do care bothered by it and all that.

But yeah, I suppose if protection of my pages, vandalism to my pages and revdelling of edits to my pages is anything to go by, I'm an excellent vandal-fighter. /strikes arrogant pose. 10 revdelled edits, 9 other harassment/vandalism edits and semi-protection across both user and user-talk—and I've only been back for maybe a week and a half. Oh, and a spurious ANI-thread by a now-blocked sock. Yup, guess that I'm on a roll. Or, as looks to be more correct in this case, I've been reverting a LTA-troll. (+random assortment of minor trolls and vandals. Saw you've been busy in that as well.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Denisarona! :) Acalamari 15:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent you a personal email. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I popped in today just to close an RfA. If I don't look at this tonight I'll do so tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Acalamari 20:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acalamari, Luckily Acroterion intervened on this problem, which turned out to be a sockpuppet. I think we may still have trouble, as they keep switching from User name to different User name and also IP's. Will keep you advised of any developments. My best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago you indefinitely blocked User:Angeline.cabarobias and it looks like the user has used a couple of IP address to evade the block, User:119.94.118.2 and User:49.147.97.79. Aspects (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, I have blocked 119.94.118.2 while 49.147.97.79 is still blocked, so I've left that one for now. Thanks for letting me know and please feel free to inform me if new socks appear. Best. Acalamari 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another IP sockpuppet has popped up, User:182.18.225.52. Aspects (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. Acalamari 12:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaugh FlyingToaster 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely. Thanks very much - I have much to do this weekend. And beyond... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Ser Amantio di Nicolao; I'm happy to have closed your RfA. Have fun with your new tools. :) Acalamari 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeno! Thanks for letting me know; I will read the proposal and comment soon. I would love it if the community did grant additional tasks to the bureaucrat usergroup given that we no longer have renames to perform but have lots of bureaucrats; still, I should meet those activity requirements easily, given how I've still been using the tools despite the relative scarcity of bureaucratic work available. :) Acalamari 15:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe it's been this long since you became an admin? Happy anniversary bro :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, mister. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS and Kafka Liz. :) Wow...eight years - I actually do find it hard to believe I've been an administrator for this amount of time. I thought I'd probably have left Wikipedia long before now but no, I'm still here; many of my friends from 2007 rarely or no longer edit but I'm certainly glad and think it's great that both of you are here. :) Acalamari 22:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acalamari, would it be possible for you to delete the above PROD expired article? Thanks and congrats on completing 8 years on Wikipedia, so much to learn from you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for recognition, too. :) Acalamari 13:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's too late; I missed the RfA. But if you are involved in the decision, and if it makes any difference, I would have !voted support. He is in some ways a difficult character, but is unarguably a net positive in the admin corps.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, unfortunately, at this point no new supports are accepted, same with any new oppose votes. As for my being involved in the decision, this is a rare RfA where I've had to recuse because I've voted in the candidacy. Acalamari 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are keeping an eye on Sheryl Crow articles, so you may be interested in an odd connection I have found. This Chicago-based IP appears to be static:

• 192.243.218.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

It appears to be connected to another static IP from Michigan:

• 50.33.72.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The connection is shown by using the intertwined edit tool:

• Combined edits of 192.243.218.7 and 50.33.72.82

Looks like someone commutes, and contributes in both locations. The two IPs have been blocked a total of three times. They also both contribute to Simple Wikipedia,[2][3] which is somewhat unusual.

I don't expect you to act upon this information right away, but it's something to keep in mind while watching the various song and album articles, especially since both IPs have been given Level 4 warnings in the last few days. Best wishes – Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet, thanks for this update; I'll be sure to review it and keep it in mind whenever the likes of Sheryl Crow and similar articles are subject to this. As if the other trolls weren't enough! Acalamari 00:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WJBscribe, just noting that I have seen the bureaucrat chat and your message here; I've been reading the RfA over the week and over the day. I'll try to have my input in before I go to bed later. Acalamari 17:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Hi Rich, you're very welcome; I'm happy to have supported. I hope you'll run again at some point and I can support for a second time. Hope I'll see you at another meetup, too! :) Acalamari 19:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this video in english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezIHQ0pkTE. @01:25, Nelly is asked: «You are not spanish, right?». And then, the answer: «No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN....» Not a fansite, not a blog: the truth from her own mouth. There's a lot more videos on Youtube in portuguese and spanish, where Nelly say she is Portuguese, but I think this one is enough to prove that the sentence «Nelly Furtado is Canadian» is very wrong. Blockmaker00 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Unless they are particularly active in their ethnic community, it is generally considered inappropriate to put this kind of information in the lede. Your idea that a Portuguese-Canadian is not a Canadian is peculiar and racist; not more than a handful of the most extreme Tories would agree with you. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way to soapbox, assume bad faith and straw man, all while posturing as being helpful. GraniteSand (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? How else am I to interpret a flat statement that she is "not Canadian"? Is Michael Chong, being both Chinese-Canadian and Dutch-Canadian, "not Canadian"? Is Leslie Nielsen, being Danish-Canadian, "not Canadian"? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could exercise some due diligence before calling a stranger a peculiar racist. The editor is just trying to establish that's she holds Portuguese citizenship. GraniteSand (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orangemike, I never said that she is not Canadian. I said that she is not ONLY Canadian, but ALSO Portuguese. There's a big difference. She is Portuguese-Canadian. Call me racist if you want, but that don't change the fact that Nelly's wiki page is WRONG. Ahhh, and let me tell you that you made me laugh with your "Unless they are particularly active in their ethnic community, it is generally considered inappropriate to put this kind of information in the lede". Okay, now we know that people must be particularly active in their ethnic community to get their citizenship recognized... GraniteSand, thank you very much for your good faith! Blockmaker00 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, actually, in the subject header you explicitly used the words "not Canadian".

2. If she retains dual citizenship, then that's significant in her life. We do not say that Isaac Asimov was a "Russian-born American" or a "Russian American"; we say he was an American. He had only the one citizenship. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, in the subject I said "Nelly Furtado is Portuguese-CANADIAN, and not Canadian". As I explained, there's a big difference. If I was saying that she is not Canadian, I would have said: "Nelly Furtado is Portuguese and not Canadian". Nelly has the two citizenships and she said it lots of times in interviews. Watch the video on Youtube and you will hear Nelly say: "No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN." End of story. You can try to find all the arguments you want to deny it (Asimov or whatever), but the fact is that she knows better than you what she is. Blockmaker00 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft, thanks for the note. Xeno made me aware of the discussion but I haven't yet decided what my opinion is on the subject; I'm even more unsure what to think after Xeno pointed this out about my own bureaucratic work! :P :D Acalamari 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Busy little beaver :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted a huge edit form here. I don't normally do that on other folk's talk pages but this made yours almost impossible to load. Someone seems to dislike you to the tune of almost 2MB. Good lord. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent, thanks for the revert. :) Heh, I wonder what I did for that person to drop by and leave that friendly note on my talk page. ;) Speaking of talk pages becoming impossible to load, I ought to archive mine - it's long! Acalamari 12:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acalamari, you blocked User:Early Morning Hardon back in March, and based on this I'm wondering whether they should perhaps also be blocked from editing their talk page? Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 20:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, yep, no good will come from allowing them to continue editing their talk page; as such, I've blocked talk page access. Thanks for reporting this. :) Acalamari 20:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh...another bureaucrat chat! :D WJBscribe, you sure you didn't want the honor of being the sole closer of this behemoth of an RfA? ;) Joking aside, I will try to find some time to read it and provide input on the chat page. Thanks for the notification. Acalamari 12:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, neither did you. WJBscribe (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! :) Acalamari 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WJBscribe, I didn't have a moment since your post to evaluate the RfA and write my view in the chat, although I have been following the former over the course of the week and the latter occasionally since you began it. I'm off to bed for now but if the chat isn't closed by 12:00 UTC today, I will contribute to it, either in the form of my judgment or to perform the close, if it's reached the ending point. Night night. Acalamari 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
		Time and time again, the bureaucrats of en-wiki demonstrate their levelheadedness and expertise. Like an anesthesiologist in an operating room, you spend most of your time screwing around reading a magazine, but stand ready to spring into action when needed, only to fade into the background once your important work is done. Or perhaps that's more like Batman? Whatever your preferred metaphor, I am consistently impressed by the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for your service. HiDrNick! 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HiDrNick, just doing my job. :) Even so, thank you for the barnstar; it's always a good feeling when someone appreciates your work. Best. Acalamari 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acalamari,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, you're welcome. As for the "close call RfAs"...they're only difficult if they have massive turnout - then they're hard to read through! :D Your RfA is the biggest since I became a bureaucrat in January of last year. Acalamari 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]