I am back EVula as Brit XII. And you thought you stopped me. You may have killed American Brit but his dispiles like me wont die. Brit XII17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i didnt realise that it had closed. I removed it becuase i thought he was still a hopeful and i wasn't serious. (a ban from that page wasnt neccessary) But yeah i did go over the top a bit on April Fools, sorry bout all that. I shall go back to editing(for the better) articles. I really do help out! This page and this page is examples of my work. :) Arn't i just so helpful, most the pictures there are mine too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs)
For saving the Chechnya userbox. I thought of adopting this userbox myself, because the Chechen people are dear to me as fellow believers in Allah. Al-Bargit16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I really hope you didn't suggest those and think that I wouldn't accept the challenge, because otherwise you're going to be fairly pissed soon. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I've already taken care of it for you now. Incidentally, you missed the succession boxes I added to Mon Mothma, Princess Leia Organa, and Finis Valorum (which I've also reverted). I never understood the tendecy of most wikipedians to "fix" something on one page but not bother to check if it was done on related pages.--Dr who197522:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because they don't have the time. I was fully planning on taking care of those, but got wrapped up in administrative "paper"-work and then got a call to help a friend move. Poo, I was so looking forward to axing those after moving bookcases and boxes. Oh well, looks like I'll have to do some other mindless, repetitive task for the next few hours. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I get it. We all have day jobs. In any event, your comments lead me to think that you're not too emotionally invested in this one way or the other and that you are simply trying to enforce the guidline. That leads me to ask, why enforce so ridgidly something that;s a guideline and not a policy?--Dr who197512:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To which I ask the question: why wouldn't I? I'm a strong believer in maintaining the Manual of Style across all of the articles, and I do believe that documenting in-universe relationships like that (in succession boxes) gives them undue weight and is contrary to the real-world perspective we're to maintain on Wikipedia. EVula// talk // ☯ //16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know... you put that a lot more articulatly than the MOS did. It simply bans the use of ALL succession boxes for fictional characters... whether they have internal Universe perspective or not. It's a real issue.--Dr who197500:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to remove Lilkunta's formatting of their messages here (and they used a font I did have installed); this isn't the user's talk page. Grrr. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pls take no offense as this post is incomic and change it if u must. Let me know how I should post 2 u. I was told Chiller was the problem and suggested to use this ( comic ) or garamond, so I'm using comic. U said u have comic sans, was my post hard to read? Lilkunta23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my problem. I don't think you should be using your personal font styling anywhere other than on your own talk page. What you use there, I couldn't care less; I just shouldn't be subjected to it when, say, on the Administrator noticeboard, or another user's talk page. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion going on at Dick Grayson with regard to replacing the imaged used with the infobox there.
Nutshell is that it was going in circles (including image flips) and I had put up a straw poll a week ago to see if we were any where near a consensus about 1) changing it, 2) if so, to what, and 3) should relevant guidelines be applied.
Could you take a swing by the talk page and see if there is some way of actually closing out the discussion as someone who's outside the debate?
I'm actually about to head out the door right now; I'll take a look at it either tonight if I get home early (highly unlikely), or tomorrow when I eventually drag my sorry ass out of bed. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you recommend getting a legitimate cite for Candlejack's status as a meme? Most people who search for information on Candlejack know him as a meme, not as a Freakazoid! character. 4chan memes are rarely, if ever, discussed in scholarly books or articles. I'm sure if I cited a blog or something, you would consider it unsatisfactory. So, basically, how do I get a cite? Algabal00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually a blog isn't an acceptable source for something. However, when discussing memes in general, I do believe that the normal rules for citations can be stretched a bit. How about we meet somewhere in the middle; if you can find a couple of sources that, if taken individually, wouldn't past muster, I'd be fine with combining them into a single citation (ie: a single citation, but that citation mentions maybe three or four blogs). EVula// talk // ☯ //06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EVula, can I ask for further clarification on why you didn't delete Talk:Bob Mcilvaine under WP:CSD#G8? {{db-talk}} and WP:CSD say G8 can be used for the talk page of a page which has been deleted (with no mention of any specific process) or does not exist, which this page meets. The exceptions include 'If the page contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere' (the others are irrelevant), but this page has an AFD discussion which mentions the one deletion point brought up on the page. I believe G8 can be applied and would like to hear your thoughts for future reference. Thanks, mattbr19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually yes, you're right; the only discussion there was well before the AfD was closed. On the whole, I feel that G8 is abused; talk pages are routinely deleted just because their articles don't exist anymore, with no regard to whether or not there is actual content. A good example would be Talk:Mortal Kombat: Devastation; the article was deleted, but I then restored it and moved it to my userspace where it could be worked on until there are more sources; the talk page serves as a notice for people to use the userfied version, rather than create a new article (which has happened). I tend to err on the side of caution, though this time it would have been fine to just delete it. Thanks for bringing it back to my attention. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //20:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have been working through a list and I have left ones that have content that is left after deletion on purpose, or ones I'm not sure about, but there are plenty that are just nonsense and/or don't need keeping! Thanks again, mattbr22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
I thought the style was better the way it was before. I compared both versions. The excessive big bold headings was not quite remarkable. Furthermore, there was a creation of a space gap at the top of the external links section. My edit improved the style. Thanks for asking. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the actual segmenting of the headings (visible in the TOC) to be better than how it merely appears (and the gap is obviously a browser-dependant issue, as I see none), especially since the headings aren't any bigger than any other level-3 heading anywhere else on Wikipedia, but whatever; it isn't that big of a deal. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can understand the gap being an issue, though I can think of a way around that. The headings having "undue weight", though, confuses me, but like I said, this isn't a big deal. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Hope you don't mind but I added a section break on ANI to try to spur some interest. So far only involved editors have commented on the length of the block. Please feel free to move or edit the section break if you care to. Thanks. --Justanother01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great idea; I really am earnest in my willingness to cut the block down if others think it is too extreme. More discussion is welcome. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A most interesting comment at WP:ANI from previously un-involved editor, User:Robertissimo -- Having observed much of the above unfold as it happened, I feel this block (and its length) is appropriate. Robertissimo 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Here is the DIFF. Smee05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Don't do that. If you contest a deletion 1) Ask the deleter to reconsider 1) use DRV - which is currently debating the issue. Wheel warring defined by arbcom as 'reversing another administrator without discussion' may lead to your desysopping. Please consider reversing yourself to avoid further trouble.--Docg15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, I had no clue there was a DR going on for it; I saw a note about it on AN, and knew that speedily deleting a template that has survived multiple attempts at deletion through the proper channels was utter bullshit. CSD isn't a blank check for admins to get rid of whatever they happen to not like; he should have sent it through TfD again, not hid behind T1. EVula// talk // ☯ //15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. But that's a matter for debate. There's seldom an urgency to restore anything, and if someone deletes something according to his view of what's obvious and then you restore it according to yours we get into a wheel war. Hence, the mantra arbcom gave us was never to reverse without discussion. DRV is discussing it - if you are right, they will reverse the deletion.--Docg15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? You mean that the the world's very existence didn't hinge on whether the template was still around or not? I thought this was the most important thing to ever happen! ;)
I'm willing to say that I jumped the gun a bit by restoring, but I'm entirely unwilling to reverse my restoration; I truly believe that Thebainer abused his deletion ability by deleting the template simply because he didn't like it.
If the DR does indeed come to the conclusion that it should stay deleted, I'll consider that the next best thing to a successful TfD. EVula// talk // ☯ //15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but generally don't jump to reverse people just because you 'know' you are right. Bainer, no doubt, thought he was right. You are also right. I could 'know' I'm right by re-deleting it with 'don't undelete this out of process - wait for DRV' and then someone else might re-undelete it because they 'know' my redeletion was wrong. That might sound crazy, but it has happened many times before. That's why it is best to pause before reversing even an outrageous decision by another admin. Best to say 'I'm going to reverse this, unless anyone objects' and wait an hour or two. Or come to DRV and call for a 'speedy undelete'. If the deletion is as outrageous as you 'know' it is, you will quickly get support. Whilst bainer's deletion may be viewed as outrageous in the end, not having a template for a few hours, whilst we talk, is far less damaging than risking a righteous wheel-war. Anyway, peace.--Docg15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, trust me, this sort of thing isn't happening again. I learn rather quickly, albeit only after I get myself into trouble. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just trace back the fight between several editors and Misou (who was set up by some other editors in brilliant tactical manner, though very much detriment to the spirit of Wikipedia) and I just added to
Misou's talk page that I find your "first block ever: one week" too harsh and an injustice not reflecting the circumstances of the incivility claimed. CSI LA02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I agree, and neither do several other admins on ANI. I'm not a big fan of "standard" blocks just because it is someone's first time being blocked. Sufficient warning has been given; if they hadn't been blocked before then, it was a leniency that the user failed to take advantage of. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see an admin stating anything there. I see the usual anti-Scientology front drumming up even their inactive editors to keep Misou from scraping at their conscience. This is rather amusing as it shows how much of a bureaucracy this is. Never mind, do what you want, but don't only do the popular things. CSI LA05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The request should be made on that page's talk page, or the talk page for the template itself."
Been sittin' there for over a year, it has. Not a hint that anyone's noticed. What would you suggest? If I worked out a fix could I submit it?--Randwolf06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were already multiple requests there, but I've added one more. I've also reviewed the range of cite templates, looking for "publisher" and "location" parameters and posted a summary on Wikipedia talk:Citation templates--seems the templates are variable. Myself, I think I'm going to stick to Template:Citation in the future. Randwolf16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Majorly(hot!)19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I've removed the {{prod}} tag from the DVB-RCS article, as it doesn't appear to be a candidate for non contentious deletion - I've tagged it {{tone}} as it reads a little like a brochure. It may yet be a candidate for AfD - Tiswas(t/c)08:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, the overall tone of the article is very poor, and I definitely had my suspicions about it, considering that the only two contributors are almost single-purpose accounts in their contributions (plus the fact that very few articles link back to DVB-RCS). I'll leave it as-is for now; I just wanted another pair of eyes to check out the article. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice on insults! That is part of what bothered me so much is I take them daily, why did I get so offended by these? Well, its all in the past now hopefully. Time to move forward! Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was personally able to shrug them off because they were just so outrageously over-the-top (I mean, really, you can only get so offended by "pussy sucking shit eater") and they were all by editors I'd blocked for other reasons. Insults (even if veiled slightly) from a regular editor cut to the bone much easier, as it is completely unexpected; the cut is all the worse when nothing is done about it. Kicking ass and taking shit for that is just part of the job, though I wish it wasn't. But, if you're going to get flak no matter what, you might as well have a "damn the consequences" attitude about doing the right thing; that's what I do. :) If you ever need someone to just bitch at to blow off some steam, you know where I am.EVula// talk // ☯ //14:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm terribly familiar with how easy it is to slip up. I've had to stop doing admin stuff past a certain time, as its obvious I shouldn't be deleting stuff when I'm tired. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for blocking those socks of User:Billy Ego. I received this message shortly thereafter, and was wondering if I could ask you to block that account as well. May be one to keep an eye on. Thanks again for your speedy assistance. MastCellTalk16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you forgot this one and a hundred others. I live in a building with many students with an IP that is constantly in flux you bozos. I'm not a sockpuppet of Billy Ego but I am of Regulations. Billy Ego is apparently somebody in some other room or some other city in the same geographic region. I was wrongly blocked. Billy Ego said he was a fascist. I'm obviously the opposite of that..a libertarian. So why would I (Regulations) be a sockpuppet of Billy Ego? But of course you don't care. Do your mindless administration duties. But good luck finding the hundreds of other usernames coming from this region of the country and good luck finding the new username I will create immediately after you block this one. And good luck finding my other usernames I use in articles that you don't know to check since I edit new articles everyday. You are forcing people to create hundreds of sockpuppets to keep from being detected. Eventually Wikipedia will be all sockpuppets, if it's not already. Truent17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That template, while very nice, doesn't tell anything about the licensing of the image. Works of state governments, with rare exception, are not in the public domain. Wyoming's website, for example, has this to say: "The State of Wyoming and its agencies are and shall remain the sole and exclusive owner of all rights, title and interest in and to all lists, libraries, databases, maps, graphics, compilations, files and other data created and posted for inclusion in this system, including ownership of any trade secrets or copyright pertaining thereto, except as specifically noted." So we can't use a work of the state government of Wyoming except under a claim of fair use. What's more is that the article using that image - List of U.S. state license plates - contains nothing but blatant copyvios. Just about all of those images are merely cropped versions of license plates found at [2]. Even if they weren't copyvios, they would be derivative works of copyrighted license plate designs and thus not acceptable for free use. I know this kinda puts a damper on your efforts, but that template, license plate, and every license plate in the article all need to be deleted. --BigDT05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that referance Master Kavar refers to the Exile as "him" - please do not changed the gender to female. It wrong, deal with it. --The Matrix Prime15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{cleanup}} was placed at the top of the article because it needs to be reformatted to match the manual of style.
Image:school-monogram.jpg was moved to the right of the article so that it ate up less room; in general, it looks much better like that.
{{fact}} was placed beside the "regarded as the best" comment because there's no source for the claim.
The biggest edit was to remove the gallery. That is because all of the images had been deleted (by me) under speedy deletion criterion I4, meaning that they had no copyright tag for more than a week.
Erm, the previous editor has come back, removed all our cite tags, put his gallery back, but also added some extra stuff. Does that warrant a revert? LookingYourBest13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the images appear to be properly tagged now, so the gallery can stay. However, all of the maintenance tags should still remain; I've restored them. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, this comes at a time when there actually is a backlog on WP:AIV. I know these backlogs do happen, and perhaps quite often. However, what I was trying to say is that backlogs at WP:AIV always get cleared quickly. On the other hand, other backlogs, say at Category:Disputed fair use images, are never fully resolved. -- tariqabjotu21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a fair enough clarification. I still don't see the "contest" as enducing an otherwise reasonable admin to start blocking non-disruptive editors (which is what I took as being your concern), but I will certainly agree that the AIV backlog in no way, shape, or form ever compares to the other admin backlogs. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I have made a suggestion on how to help cut down on the admin backlogs. Much less controversial, and less dramatic, but I think it would be just fine if people would stop complaining about the size of the backlogs and start tackling them. (personally, I've cleared out four days worth of backlogs in the three days) EVula// talk // ☯ //21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, for the record, I've got all my talk page archives fully protected. I don't think it's particularly unusual. EVula// talk // ☯ //03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. Wonder why they're not showing up on Special:Protectedpages. Anyway, unusual or not, it's against policy and, as far as I can see, unnecessary. Adminship is a position of trust, not a right to privileges that other users don't have; that includes protection of arbitrary pages without reason. In other words, if non-adminstrators can't have their archives fully-protected (which they can't), why should anyone be allowed them? – Gurch04:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound like an ass, but where is it against policy? I don't see anything wrong with it, but if there's a policy (not guideline) against it, I'll revoke the protection. The whole reason I locked them down is that I can't see a reason why someone would need to make any edits to them. That is odd about Special:Protectedpages... archive 3 shows up, but none of the others do. However, in looking it over, it seems that I'm not the admin by a long shot that has locked down their talk archives.[5][6][7][8][9][10]EVula// talk // ☯ //04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the protection policy is inclusive, rather than exclusive; it specifies what you can do rather than what you can't. From the policy:
Indefinite full protections are used for:
High visibility pages such as the Main Page in order to prevent vandalism. This includes templates transcluded to these pages.
The site's logo, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, for legal reasons. Admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
Certain "system administration" pages, including many editorial, deletion and stub templates, and the entire MediaWiki namespace. These are pages that need rarely be changed, and that because of widespread usage can cause large-scale disruption if vandalized, or modified ill-advisedly. Again, admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
Personal css and js pages like User:Example/monobook.css or User:Example/cologneblue.js are automatically fully protected by the MediaWiki software. Only the account associated with these pages and admins are able to edit them.
Temporary full protections are used for:
Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page.
User archives certainly aren't high-visibility, they're not part of the site's copyright/license pages, they're not Foundation press releases, they're not vulnerable templates, they're not in the MediaWiki namespace, they won't cause large-scale disruption if edited, they haven't been repeatedly recreated, they're not personal css or js pages, there have been no edit wars, no deletion reviews and nobody has abused {{unblock}} on them.
I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with semi-protection (though I think that's also unnecessary), because the policy allows for that (it lists: User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user. as suitable for indefinite semi-protection). Sorry if I'm being disruptive, but I am a little puzzled by what seems to be a more widespread tendency than I thought to fully protect what are among the least vulnerable pages we have – Gurch11:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's nothing in the policy (which you could have just linked to, rather than quote) that says I shouldn't, and it seems to be a semi-common occurrence among other admins, I can't say that I'm particularly convinced that I should remove it. Most importantly, it isn't doing anyone harm, and it doesn't affect the encyclopedia. If it did, I might reconsider, regardless of it not being spelled out in the policy.
If the policy changes, feel free to let me know and I will remove the protection, but in the meantime, I just can't get myself worked up about it; there are far too many things that do affect that encyclopedia to worry about (specifically, I'm trying to get admins to address the backlog situation).
Also, there's no need to apologize; you're doing what you can to address something you feel is a problem. I may disagree with you about it, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the effort. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear EVula, I am not involved in any issues related to HanzoHattori, but I often looked at his edits. I believe he is the best WP editor and fantastic expert on topics related to Chechnya and some other topics. Yes, he was uncivil with regard to a "phantom" user who every time appeared under different IP addresses to intentionally disrupt work of Hanzo. Please also take into account the cultural differences between people from different countries who work in Wikipedia. I think that two week punishment is too harsh. Would it be possible if you or another neutral administrator reconsidered his case and reduced the time of block? Sincerely, Biophys02:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to bring it up on WP:ANI, be my guest (also, he can at any time put {{unblock}} on his talk page to get a third-party opinion). Considering how blatantly he was violating WP:CIVIL, though, don't expect the reaction to be much different than mine. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that he is an extremely productive and qualified editor who made more than 13,000 of edits, created perhaps ~50 new articles, and significantly improved many other articles (he worked with more than 2,000 of unique pages). I think he needs some help from other friendly editors to defuse any potential conflicts rather than a block for two weeks. I could try to talk with him and help, if he would accept my help.Biophys21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a rat's ass how productive he is; such gross and blatant incivility is absolutely and utterly inexcusable. I've got over 16,000 edits and have worked on over 8,000 unique articles,[11] but that doesn't mean I can all of a sudden start insulting people just for shits and giggles. There's no magic threshold that one can cross to make official policy irrelevant to that particular editor; WP:CIVIL applies to every anon, regular editor, admin... everyone. Like I said, feel free to make a case for it at WP:ANI if you feel that I've been unfair. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Basically, this is none of my business. I myself have a bad experience with WP:ANI. So, I will do nothing unless Hanzo requests unblock. But there is something really strange with a user that appears every time from a different IP address and makes things that he did. Does not this anonymous user fall under the category of an aggressive sockpuppet?Biophys01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can tie an account back to the IP, it by definition can't be a sockpuppet. Also, given the fact that the information that Hanzo and the IP are arguing about is completely unsourced, an argument could be made that Hanzo was the one in the wrong. There's also a violation of WP:OWN thrown into the mix [12] and possibly WP:3RR as well, plus the fact that he's got a history of blocks for violating both 3RR and CIVIL repeatedly. That's three policies right there I can see violations on, coupled with ample evidence that this is chronic behavior; all in all, the block was thoroughly deserved, and the two week time span is an appropriate escalation. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that since you commented, you're watching that user's page.
Thank you for pointing out that Mr Tilman might have been filing a generic NPA warning, and not specifically on his own behalf. I read it and interpreted it to mean he was personally offended and felt attacked. Your alternate viewpoint is equally valid. However, my point wasn't specifically about who filed, as much as it was to address the fact that he stated that he had to assume it 'was' an attack (as opposed to having to assume it wasn't an attack), which would violate AGF.
I'll not defend anyone for being abusive or uncivil. We each must answer for our own transgressions.
However, I also assume, if you are watching the userpage, that you are familiar with the constant (and often frivolous) charges going back and forth of WP:NPA.
These charges are seemingly intended more to make a point and to provide a trail of bread crumbs, to be used later in more serious charges. That is only my opinion, based on the history I have seen and read since coming to wiki. It is not to be construed as a charge against any specific individual or group.
My experience is that users are collecting these WP:NPA charges off-wiki and then later produce a massive? list in order to substantiate more serious charges by showing an abusive pattern. When, in fact, much of that pattern is being manufactured.
The problem arises when the list is presented to admins in a more serious abuse case. Because admin time is valuable and limited, it is reasonable (in my opinion) to assume that not every single citation will be investigated for the full value of its merit. Thus, by presenting an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of a charge, it would be reasonable for an admin to conclude where there is smoke, there must be fire.
The articles that those two users are editing are highly emotionally charged and hotly contested. Tempers raise and sarcasm spills out. Sarcasm is not always a personal attack and I believe that users should not be so quick on the WP:NPA trigger. Sometimes its just venting frustration. If that venting violates wp:civil.. then it should be addressed.
When I see WP:NPA warnings, I read the material. If I disagree with the NPA charge, I say so. If I agree with it, I say that also. I have posted both agreement and disagreement comments for warnings posted by and against editors on both sides of that issue.
I saw [this] and I have to ask.. You actually see a connection in my editing style, verbosity and english to another user here? Lsi john11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your constant posting (and defending) on Misou's talk page, yes, I'd say it came across as a little odd (if only because he has confirmed socks; if he didn't, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me). Given my experience with User:American Brit, who would interact with his own socks quite often, it seemed entirely likely. EVula// talk // ☯ //13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not aware of what was or wasn't proven. I repeatedly defend against repeated spurious attacks. I've defened other users as well. But thats a digression.
From what I can tell, his writing style is vastly different from mine. His temperment is also vastly different. Besides that he's CoS and I'm not. I suppose that can't be proven and if I'm him I could be lying about not being CoS. Though my edit history should establish that I'm not. And my userpage should also show a distinctly different idiology.
Even Smee backed away from the request.. though admitedly he waited until after the reprimand, which was amusing.
In the aforementioned sock situation, the various accounts had somewhat different posting styles from the puppeteer. Just sayin'. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thats the cool thing about conspiracy. We can't prove it exists, and the less evidence we find for it, the more we declare that the absence of evidence is evidence of conspiracy. Once accused, always suspected, considered guilty.
Sorta speaks to the same issue with all the NPA accusations flying around, the more accusations we make (especially if some really are true), the more guilt we can imply.
And its like wiki's 'list of groups referred to as cults ...'. Whether you're a cult or not, all someone has to do is refer to you as one, and bingo, you're on the list and you cant get off, because, (other than wp:rs of the original 'referred to as'), no method to refute entry on those lists exists; by definition of the list itself: referred to as. Yet the lists are really read as list of cults.. and the referred to as is overlooked by human nature. Very pejorative, prejudicial and misleading, IMO.
And now its like Smee's SOCK-ATTACK on me. He carefully avoids declaring me a sock.. although he has now officially (and improperly) tagged my original (never deleted) 1-time-use-before-block-for-improper-username account as a sockpuppet. And he has carefully worded statements that he hasnt called me a sock yet .. etc etc..
Alrighty, you're starting to get into more than I actually care about (this whole thing has already grossly exceeded my capacity for interest). At this point, I'd like to point out the oh-so-wonderful "Show preview" button that will show what your formatted post will look like. :P EVula// talk // ☯ //15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for a status bar that does not involve an enormous flourescent traffic light, and I like the understated one you hvae. Do you mind if I copy it? Natalie19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means! I'm pretty happy with it too, for the same reasons you mentioned; I don't like the really garish stuff that some people have on their pages.
The status page itself is at User:EVula/status. It'll look funky on the page, as it is technically doubled-up (I've got my header on all my sub-pages, including that one, and it's the header itself that includes the status on all the pages... I should probably simplify that one of these days). EVula// talk // ☯ //20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's a shame that I even have to block a single person. Just think how improved the encyclopedia would be if all of the vandals contributed just one researched, referenced and correctly-cited fact? Regards, (aeropagitica)08:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely agree that it sucks. But when people avoid the reality of what needs to be done, it pisses me off. *shrug* EVula// talk // ☯ //13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, opinions about RfA requirements vary wildly among editors, with some people having strict rules, and others being much more relaxed. Personally, what I've noticed is that a user who is actively involved in both the encyclopedia side (articles, talk pages, etc) and the project side (processes like AfD and the like) tend to have a fairly good chance. Users that show an affinity for admin-like activity (such as dealing with vandals or helping to clear out backlogs) are especially well-received.
For you, I think an RfA right now would fail (nothing personal). You've only been around for a few months; most people aren't comfortable promoting someone that hasn't shown dedication to the project for less than six months (I was promoted in roughly eight months). As much as people complain about editcountitis, it does come into play somewhat in an RfA; 1,000 edits just isn't enough to get a feel for how someone behaves, and they likely haven't come into contact with enough other editors to show their true colors in a dispute (I had a little more than 9,100 edits when my RfA ran, but generally 2,000 is the number tossed around as the unofficial minimum). I also think you'd get questioned about your alternate account(s), and I would expect at least a few to have grave concerns about your support for censorship on Wikipedia.[14]
I hope I haven't scared you away from running an RfA. Being an administrator is a thankless job, and involves stepping up and accepting more responsibility (and, to be honest, more abuse) than the average editor. I hope you can rise to the challenge. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would probably be best reported to WP:AN; I have no experience with the suspected sock puppets area (and have enough on my plate that I don't want to get involved). EVula// talk // ☯ //23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the banning of user Yagi Karu was wrongfully ban for reasons that are not "vandalism". Yagi Karu is a normal user that tries to add to tasteful things of good taste but are taken as bad taste. Also this user is always using wikipedia at school. Sometimes he forgets to sign out and people vandalize pages. Please, if it be in your forgiveness, un-ban Yagi Karu. 74.195.214.3502:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your account gets swiped at school, that's your problem, not mine; we're each responsible for our own accounts.
Although just a bystander, I want to say sorry for incivility that you were the object of (mentioned in AN/I). I am on a campaign to say sorry for others (just like people who remember others on National Sorry Day.Conmatrix15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind protecting that talkpage, as was done to the sockpuppet User talk:France a, since the editor is now accusing me of falsifying administrator's IP addresses, and I'm a bit bored with the discussion. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS: I'll also ask AndonicO to protect it.[reply]
Yeah, I actually meant to lock it down after my comment about his brother. *shrug* Nice to know that that is finished; I can take it off my watchlist now. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... not really, no. I guess if you want to make a big stink, sure, I might, but I don't see why you can't do it yourself; it's only fifteen pages, after all. Actually, your overall bitchiness about this whole thing is confusing as hell to me. Might want to stop snapping at anyone who has the audacity to edit in your userspace; you don't own it, after all. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am annoyed by bots "fixing" things that don't need fixing. I am annoyed by people who, when asked to explain their demands, go and complain on AN/I. I am annoyed when, because the pages are a problem for bots, people say "just delete them". I was not the only person on Will's talk page who asked why the bot is running through user space. I was simply waiting for his reply...and instead I see that crap on AN/I. Guettarda18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As "that crap" points out, you did get a response. As it is, I didn't see it as a complaint (as in, "that mean old Guettarda has double redirects and is a bad person"), more of a "I need an admin to fix these because I can't do it myself". Breathe, nobody is thinking less of you because of the redirects. I agree that the call for people to delete the pages was a little silly, which is why I redirected them instead. Nothing was lost, and as they are inactive sandboxes, I don't see what the problem is. As much as you're bitching that "we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia", you sure seem to get awfully worked up over something that isn't a major problem. Perhaps you should walk away from the computer for a while to relax... EVula// talk // ☯ //18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got a message that said "fix this, it's annoying my bot". I asked "why is your bot editing my userspace?" His explanation was simply "it slows my bot down". How is that an answer to "why is your bot editing user space?" When someone's bot is malfunctioning, they should fix it. Software malfunctions aren't features. He didn't reply, so I figured he had fixed his bot. Instead, he waits a couple days and then complains about it on AN/I. If he wanted to be rude about it he could have just fixed them himself. But no, he doesn't want to fix his bot, he doesn't want to explain his actions, he doesn't want to edit the page himself, he wants to go and make a big show about it at AN/I. Why? Who knows. But it's pretty damn annoying and incredibly rude. Guettarda18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find your attitude to be ten times worse than his. Wonder why he didn't fix them himself? Because he's not an administrator. Silly reason, I know. If his initial answer was not quite what you were expecting, perhaps you should have asked him to clarify (rather than "say it in English," which is hardly helpful). EVula// talk // ☯ //19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bot operator is responsible for fixing an errant bot. His initial answer was redirect.py doesn't pick and choose what it fixes - that's supposed to mean something to me? When I ask a question in English and someone answers me in German, I would ask that they reply in English, not because I feel there is some inherent superiority in English, but because my German is almost non-existent. When I speak to someone in English and they answer with a link to programming code, it's no different. That's apart from the fact that I was pointing out that his bot was misbehaving - in other words, it was a polite request to fix his bot. As one should do when one encounters a mildly malfunctioning bot. If someone points out to a bot operator that their bot is malfunctioning, the correct response isn't "not my fault" (which appears to be what he is saying). If his bot can't be told what namespace it's supposed to be operating in, it's a menace. I have no idea why you find it "ten times worse" to try to get a bot operator to rein in a malfunctioning bot, then it is to utterly ignore the request, and instead post a complaint on AN/I
As for Will not being an admin - I had forgotten that he was de-adminned. Quite frankly, I had forgotten about all that sordid crap - I recognised the name, knew him as an admin - I probably gave him more credit than he deserved. I still find your attitude puzzling - why do you believe that it's fine to ignore requests to rein in one's bot? Guettarda22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of your argument is that the bot was wildly out of control, which is something that I completely disagree with. "Oh my God, a bot is editing in the user namespace?!? The world is going to end!!!" Please, bots edit there all the damn time; you're just the only one whining about it. As for the bot not fixing those pages itself (what I'm assuming you're referring to when you say that the bot was broken), again, they were fully protected, so of course the bot gave up an error; again, I don't see this as the bot being out of control. Your paranoid rantings about Will attacking you by posting a simple request for administrator assistance is a large part of why I'm confused by you and your behavior. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...your Escape Velocity Nova databases are frigging awesome. Though I AM curious how you got the descriptions/unit stats of non purchasable ships (Krypt Pod, Wraith Child, etc.). Do you actually hack in to the game and physically test how many hyperspace jumps those ships have or something?
All the data is there for the ships (otherwise the computer won't know what to specify for shield levels and whatnot). Although, I have used a cheat plug-in to fly some of those ships... terribly fun, though I can't control a Krypt Pod for the life of me). EVula// talk // ☯ //02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some Pinocchio wooden marionettes for you! Pinocchio wooden marionettes somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, hopefully not. I had fun taking care of it (heh, I blasted right through my 17,000th edit doing this), but I'm not sure if I've got the stamina to do this every weekend. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, the worst cases will be next week, after that it should go down rather dramatically. (Other then new folks that don't know the policy). —— Eagle101Need help?05:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, eventually I started replacing them with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, which I think will help cut down on people going "what the hell?" and restoring the images. I also collected a nice little bunch of templates either to put up for deletion (though I did snowball speedy a few; infobox templates for only a single company, for example) or userboxes to migrate into my userspace. As it's 1am, however, I'm going to do all that after I get up tomorrow... I've had a busy enough day today, and I know from past experience that doing XfDs when I'm tired is a very bad idea. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean this as a personal attack against you and I fear it will seem dreadfully uncivil, but your responses and edits on a myriad of articles and pages, including this very one, seem awfully pompous for a mediator of civility and POV discussions. I would like to direct you to the variety of reference pages Wikipedia provides to administrators and new users alike regarding responsible behavior. Best of luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.94.111 (talk • contribs)
Well, the first step would be to gather up all the citations and evidence you'd need to write the section; if you can't do that, it's a sign that it'll be original research. :) Besides, don't worry about the first draft being perfect. This is a wiki, after all; someone will likely come along and tweak what you write. Some people (like myself) are better at tweaking other people's stuff than writing it in the first place, so you're still improving the project. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, just trying to standardize all my userpages... didn't expect to show up on anyone's radar for it. :D EVula// talk // ☯ //02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning for your edit here and the removal of the image in the template name space but I believe that the image in question should be on the page so I'm wondering if there was a way to have the image on the page that would include a proper fair use rational. Anyway thanks a bunch, MrMacMan Talk 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in looking at that template, it looks like it should be subst:ed into the one page where it is used, which would mean that the image could be used again. I'll take care of it this evening at some point when I get time. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted an edit to Facebook by James Roberts earlier today. I've reverted his edits a few times (right before and right after you) and now he's makingpersonal attacks on my Talk page. He's removed the warnings I've placed on his Talk page (which is his right) but maybe another editor could help convince to shape up. Could you please drop him a line reminding him that his behavior is completely unacceptable? Thanks! --ElKevbo19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I got the talk page notice as I was in the middle of reverting another one of his edits. :) I've blocked him for a week. His attitude is completely unacceptable. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering which part of the information I provided was nonsense... Did he not rise from his grave? Do we not eat the body of Christ at mass?
As a dedicated non-denominational Christian, I feel offended that my beliefs are considered "nonsense"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullabajew (talk • contribs)
I see your point. I think my thinking was that the John Seigenthaler, Sr. has taken on something of a "colbert" vandalism quality -- idiots vandalize that article because they
have "heard" about doing it. In spite of the fact, as you and I know, that there are few articles that are less likely to have vandalism unreverted. I seem to have spent my lunch hour last week on the trail on what I think are the same group of kids, acting in concert with each other, with a fair number of sleeper accounts. I think I've finally nailed them all, but I got a big Ahab about it all, and sort of single-minded, perhaps to the extent of not punishing as thoroughly vandals that didn't fit that particular pattern. Which is why it's nice to have collaborators...;) Dina12:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah, I completely understand the whole Ahab thing... I can get fairly fixated on vandals (being the target of a sock fight will do that to you). I'd love to collaborate with you to vanquish as many vandals as possible! ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...about this. When I looked back at it this morning it was patently obvious that I should have spotted the signs and disengaged from that matter a lot earlier. I've learnt a useful lesson about spotting querulosity and giving up before it starts to piss me off. Best, --YFB¿18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm glad to hear that there are still people interested in the job after the many successive failed RfBs (I'm not counting Cecropia's recent pass, since that was an atypical case, considering it was, well, Cecropia). Well, I'd first clarify that nothing that I'm about to say constitutes any kind of formal prerrequisite or rule, and personally, if I was going to participate in a RfB, those probably wouldn't be major criteria in my decision-making process. I would, however, bring up what is, in my experience observing RfBs, what several people would perceive as a problem — and noticing that when it comes to RfBs, all it takes are several people for it to fail. First, you've been an admin for six months exactly (November-May). Some users would prefer this number to be closer to or over 1 year. All that means, however, is that you might want to wait until at least August, when your tenure as an admin will be closer to a full year. The second point, however, is the main one: you said on my talk page that your goal would be to handle RfAs only occasionally. Most people believe that, while there's nothing wrong with specialist Bureaucrats, RfA is the soul of this position. By saying that you only want to handle RfA occasionally, you would in fact fuel the argument of "we don't need new Bcrats", in the variation of "(...) and if we were to appoint someone, it would be preferable that it be someone who is willing to work on what is really the key aspect of the job: RfA". That one would be a deal-breaker for many participants. I would even dare say, based solely on empirical observation, it must be noted, that it is virtually impossible for a RfB to pass where the candidate declares that s/he would only be working on RfA (as a Bureaucrat) sporadically. So in order to consider doing this job, you'd need to be willing to be up to your elbows in RfA (even if you take sporadic brakes from it, which is not prohibited). So I would suggest that, over the next few months, you observe the work done by the present Bureaucrats on RfA, and see if that's something you would be willing to do yourself on a regular basis. Then again, there are users out there who feel that specialist Bcrats (such as a Bcrat who vows to focus on rename exclusively, for instance) can be a good thing, and if you are a qualified candidate, you would get their support. But speaking from a strictly practical point of view, the RfB would be unlikely to succeed, because a number of people feel differently, and do oppose that kind of proposed line of work for a Bureaucrat (such as it happened with Ram-Man's RfB, when he proposed to be a Bcrat specializing on Bot duties). Other than those two points, you would appear to be a good candidate, noticing, however, that I couldn't predict how the community will react to any given name. A lot of people seem to think that hardly anyone these days is "controversy-free" enough to actually get by a RfB. This means that it doesn't hurt for you to do some kind of self-evaluation before putting forward a RfB. If there have been controversies involving your name in the few months leading up to the RfB, you might consider waiting a little longer, since it is also a very strong point in RfBs that the candidate must have a "nearly impeccable" reputation — again, not a hard rule, but something users will adhere to when deciding whether to support or oppose a candidate. I hope this will help you decide. Notice that nothing that I've mentioned is unsurmountable (if even applicable at all). But they are just things you need to be aware of when going into a RfB. Above all, however, you musn't worry about failing a RfB. If you fail due to very specific reasons which you might not have anticipated, you can simply address those issues, wait a period of time and resubmit. Nowhere is it written that anyone is required to get it in their first try or give it up forever. Cheers, Redux18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was afraid of that ("that" being that the community wouldn't likely get behind a "casual" bureaucrat). I think it's a shame, but if the bulk of what a 'crat does is RfA work, then I guess I'll just have to accept it before submitting my RfB. Oh well. :)
I'd consider my record to be mostly spotless, though I did get into a minor little scrape when the Wikidefcon template got speedily deleted and I summarily restored it. A minor little wheel war, and one that even the deleting editor said "don't worry about it", but I could see how that one indiscretion could be a potential deal breaker for anyone that hasn't interacted with me before. *shrug*
I'm still convinced that I could benefit the project being being a bureaucrat (if nothing else, it would give me a reason to learn how to spell that damn word)... I think I'm going to spend the next month or so getting more involved in RfA-related matters (and will probably go read several closed RfAs, both successful and unsuccessful, just to get an even better feel for how things go); if I still feel as strongly about being a 'crat, I'll submit my application. If my first RfB fails due to lack of experience as an admin, so be it, I'll just submit another a few months later if I still feel like it. If any other concerns are raised in my first attempt, I can also address those then, too.
One of the reasons in asking you was to see if (a) there were any concerns that I perhaps wasn't aware of (and I didn't feel like using the RfB process itself as a tool to find out...), and (b) to ensure that my perceptions weren't entirely inaccurate about the RfB process. My perceptions were (largely) correct, though I apparently underestimated the RfA importance; like I said, I'll be addressing that in the coming weeks, and if I still feel the same way about my potential RfB, I'll send it in, and hope that my potentially too-short tenure as admin isn't an issue. Thanks for the feedback! EVula// talk // ☯ //19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Because it's urgent, I also asked other admins, JzG also sent me one as well. Now I have to tell others "nevermind" :-) WooyiTalk to me?21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was displaying as a redlink, and some of the underlying wikicode was being displayed. 'Twas very odd, but it works just fine right now (if you're really curious, you might want to recreate it in your sandbox and transclude it from there). EVula// talk // ☯ //21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you constructive criticism. I appreciate your response, and I will try to make positive changes immediately. Thanks again! hmwithtalk22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'm glad to hear that. Like I said, you're a great candidate, with the only exceptions being the short time you've been here and the lack of involvement with the project. Increased activity with XfDs helps show that you know policies and guidelines, which in turn helps to counteract the whole wikiage thing (two months is still incredibly short, but submitting another one in two or three months should pass, if you can show that you know your stuff). Feel free to drop me a line with any questions. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't you know? Centrx and I are part of the anti-keyboard cabal. Sorry, thought you got the memo... EVula// talk // ☯ //22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed he was just some high-schooler dinking around. No one warned him to stop being silly, so he just kept doing it. Once he was warned, he stopped. That suggests to me that blocking (especially indefinitely) isn't necessary just now. --Masamage♫05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm admittedly hard on vandals... and, looking at the time, it's past my self-appointed "no administrative decisions" time. :) I still think that it's a relatively clear case, but if he throws up {{unblock}}, I'll reverse it. EVula// talk // ☯ //05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fair. Could you leave a note that mentions the existence of the unblock request, though? If he's not interested enough in the project to read that and do what it says, then probably he's not interested enough to do more than keep vandalizing. So either way that would satisfy me. --Masamage♫05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thanks! Man, I didn't think I had that many deletions... always interesting to actually look at the stats. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, nevermind, Guy deleted mine too because it may cause that Jeff guy to come back. Sorry about that. But, can you send the previous funny version (not my version) to me by email? Thanks. I will not post it anywhere on WP. Sorry for troubles. WooyiTalk to me?22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict]Considering the somewhat controversial nature of the original one, I'm just going to copy your most recent version to your userspace. See User:Wooyi/RTE. Post-edit conflict: So, I guess I shouldn't have stuff open, go back to watching a movie on TV, and then come back on the commercial break. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I also asked for sending the funny Jeffery version to my email, but since you didn't reply on this you dont have to do it anymore. I've asked for too many restorations, sorry. WooyiTalk to me?22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that we were coming down on him at roughly the same time... you've just gotta love tag-team vandal busting. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing the Vanderbilt template I created. You're certainly more than welcome to find another way of putting the text in there beyond an image file. However, with my limited knowledge of CSS, the only way I knew to make the text different from the default was to create it in an image. I basically appropriated the whole thing from existing university navbox templates, and just went with it the best I could. :) Esrever16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm a CSS master; I can replace almost any image with text. :) I'd go ahead and work on it now, except I'm at work. I try to keep my wikiedits to a minimum.. I'll take a shot at it later tonight when I get home from rehearsal. I see the Vandy userbox; I'm assuming you're in Nashville as well? We've got a slowly growing wiki-community; not too much longer before we could host a meetup. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologise for the gender confusion; I'm called "he" 99% of the time, so I should have been more careful. My excuse: your name ends in "a" and I hadn't had coffee yet.
On a side note, I wish I'd started saving up all the names people had called me, and threats made to me, over the years here - I'd have quite a collection. KillerChihuahua?!?20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, me, and Plange could get together to form a gender-confusion support group. :) (seriously though, like I said, I've been dealing with it for as long as I've had this screen name, which is about eleven years. don't worry about it)
My little collection is far and away my favorite thing about my userpage. If I were to drastically change my page to something bizarre (I'm looking at you, Luna and Kim) and removed everything (including the billion and a half sub-pages), I'd still keep that list.
(grr, editing conflict) Haha, wow. I just had quite the laugh going though your extensive lists. I've only gotten a "this user is gay" userbox put on my page, thus far, but I will expect much more to come. hmwithtalk21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are days where I think to myself "am I being a good admin?" Then I look at the list of all the vandals I've pissed off, and go "Hell yeah I am!" It's an excellent self-affirming process. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] See what you get to look forward to when you finally get a mop? Consider my "Neutral" !vote a favor... ;)
Nobody really cares, but for the sake of aesthetics, it's conventional to close MFD discussions with {{subst:mfd top}} and {{subst:mfd bottom}} instead of {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}}. Best regards. YechielMan07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopsie! Alright. I generally don't spend much time at MfDs, but I did recognize that as an easy G11, so I jumped right in. I'll make a note of that. Thanks! EVula// talk // ☯ //14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Defender of theWiki Barnstar (awarded to those who keep Wikipedia from falling into fraudulence) is for your deletion of Janicism. You may want to put that on you're page.—Joe Jacard19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you reverted and I quickly figured out why. I'm going to disable the editprotected tag on the talk page, everything seems to be taken care of. Cheers. --MZMcBride20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found your comment on AN/I amusing; I've been there. I made an account on the Scots wiki (someone suggested I could be of help with templates there, but I cudna ken the gud fowk thare, so I een left. My entire user page consists of informing people my Scots is beneath limited: "A smaa dug wi nae muckle Scots." And I probably wrote that wrong. KillerChihuahua?!?23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably take a stab at the French wiki... "mon français n'est pas tres bien", though. Translation: "My French is not very good;" when I went to France on a school trip, that was the one phrase I had memorized. More often than not, though, I'd pronounce it wrong, and would say "My French have not very good", which only drives the point home all the further... EVula// talk // ☯ //04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My cheap French phrase is "Pardonnez-moi - Je ne parle pas français." Same effect, except I'm worse off than you and want them to know it. KillerChihuahua?!?13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EVula has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as EVula's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear EVula!
Kick-ass. Not only do I have opening night for the show I've got a major dramatic role in, but the whole damn day is mine. Fantastic. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //04:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your comments on my RFA [16] (which I have withdrawn) saying that you would be willing to work with me. I just wanterd to say I acccept your gracious offer and that I am sure I will learn a lot from you. -- Hdt83Chat07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you delete this page for me, please? I've been waiting for an hour, and I need to do a move into there from usersapce (undo cut+paste). Thanks! --Evilclown9320:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I had to report user:Gon4z to the Administrators' noticeboard today as I found another large amount of insults he threw at other users (i.e. "I can see you an American ASS licker"). Here is the link to the new accident report as usual there is vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits and so on too... I have requested that he be banned once and for all, as he clearly is disruptive in everything he does and has been since his first edits over a year ago! noclador02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The <font> tag is largely a holdover from the early days of HTML (back during the Browser Wars). It is depreciated in XHTML (the Doctype for Wikipedia is XHTML 1.0 Transitional), primarily because it isn't needed anymore. Usually, a <span> tag (which has the added benefit of not having any default rendering issues, which sometimes the <font> tag does) can replace it without any problems; in this particular case, I further reduced code by replacing the wiki-bold tags with a <strong> tag (which has similarly replaced the <b> tag, though the rationale for that is different). I'm a stickler for proper (and slimmer) code in the websites I develop (which is one of my job descriptions), and I carry that obsessiveness over to the wiki. That right there is the real reason; the above is just the justification. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, in German. I don't speak German, and I have no idea why I so easily say "thank you" in German, though. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here. I hope that you have no objections to this, the majority of the user's edits do seem to be good faith and it would be good to see if we can dissuade them from the occasional bit of vandalism. Would have contacted you first but, judging by your contributions, you are not active right now. Cheers TigerShark23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, actually... seems like it's a bit of a moot point, however, as the overturned block has itself been overturned. A fairly interesting turn of events... though for the record, I was 100% okay with your actions (it could have waited until I was back online, but no matter). EVula// talk // ☯ //23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered seeing his first post, and going "maybe... nah." When I read over the thread (when I noticed my name :D), alarms started going off... EVula// talk // ☯ //17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I started thinking it straight away. I thought to myself "alright, how long 'till he gets onto the subject of Brit?".. turns out it wasn't long, although I decided to sit back and watch his edits for a bit. Ah well, here we go again :P ≈ The Haunted Angel17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed all the userpage vandalism you've been getting. You must be doing a good job as an admin. All the vandals think you are EVil-a, not EVula. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude or anything, but Janos Ivnovals and his subordinate Anton Mohans are not bogus characters on "Freakazoid!". They are one-time villains, having appeared in "Mission: Freakazoid!".
Sorry, I was kinda caught up at the moment and got said user confused with another who was removing legitimate warnings and block notices. My mistake. --Captain WikifyArgh!02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see what you're saying. I do find a little odd that they're going to have their page in Spanish, (we have language editions for a reason), but I see what you're saying about not being able to delete that. Thanks for notifying me of that. Good luck editing! Cool Bluetalk to me11:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Esfahan Province is currently called Isfahan Province in the article name. It should be Esfahan, and Isfahan as the redirect, not the other way around. Can't move it myself, because of the redirect. Cheers. MadMaxDog04:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll take a look at it tomorrow... I'm tired and know from experience that doing even semi-complicated administrative things once I get tired can be a Very Bad Thing. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is nothing... trust me, I've pissed off people a lot worse than that, which is why there's an amazingly hilarious collection of insults proudly displaying on my userpage. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like EVula! he blocked me and it made me go BERSERK!!!! i hate people who think they can do whatever they want! From: 67.162.81.185 aka videogameguy11196.
I appreciate your help Sweet Carmen, but i won't forget how angry i am at EVula!
You were removing perfectly valid content from one article and breaking another. Maybe I jumped the gun with my block, but you could have requested an unblock at any time with {{unblock}}. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said that it was a "piss-poor" reason to delete a picture of Johnny Cage when it's been there ever since I got to wikipedia, and that was long ago!
Uh, that is a piss-poor reason to remove an image. If the image doesn't have anything to do with the article it's in, that's a good reason. If the image is of poor quality, that's a good reason. "I don't like it" (which is basically what your argument boils down to) isn't a good reason. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
when you get you're job don't be making sure all the boards are perfect and have to be all organized and mortal kombat characters on have their recurring fatalities instead of all of them. let the character articles be like the way they are and don't think every little addition a user makes matters like the world will blow up. don't be like MarphyBlack
Considering that MarphyBlack is enforcing the Mortal Kombat Style Guide (that I helped write), I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and by which I mean you should stop harassing editors who are attempting to improve the articles in question. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what i mean by all this is that i'll let your blocking go if you don't do it again. if you want to block me talk to me about it before you do anything. Luckily MarphyBlack does that but he doesn't block me. you can now refer to me as videogameguy11196, my IMDB username.
...sorry, no, I don't make deals. If you vandalize articles, I block; if you don't, I don't. My actions are tied directly to yours; I'm not going to give you a free pass just so you'll "let [my] blocking go". EVula// talk // ☯ //16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EVula,
Thanks for your contribution on a previous Animaniacs issue. Now however, I believe that the Animaniacs article is now ready to undergo the process for Wikipedia's Good Article Nomination. If you have any concerns about the article's quality, please write it in the Animaniacs Talk Page at your earliest convienience. Thanks very much, ---- Gak Blimby 09 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my speedy delete/move requests, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding:
Regarding WEEL (AM) to WEEL, I'm not denying that the redirect is logical. However, per naming convention at WP:WPRS, radio station articles are to be located at their official callsign, unless a disambig is needed. As WEGE is the official callsign, the article should be located there.
Regarding WEGE (FM) to WEGE, WEGE is currently redirecting to a station formerly known as WEGE (WTDA). In this case, WEGE should point to the article on the current station known as WEGE. At the very least, WEGE should point to WEGE (FM). However, as above, the station's article should be located at WEGE with a dablink to WTDA is one is deemed necessary.
Regarding WBTS-FM to WBTS, the official callsign of the station is WBTS. Whereas parentheticals are for disambiguation on Wikipedia, suffixes are FCC designations. Even though it's impossible for other FCC reasons in this particular case, theoretically per their naming conventions, WBTS-FM and WTBS could be two completely different stations. As the official callsign of that station is WBTS, it should be located at WBTS with WBTS-FM as the redirect.
For the same reason above, WBSU-FM should be moved to WBSU
And, finally, WBNI needs to be moved to WBNI-FM. Regardless of any arguments above, the official callsign for this station is WBNI-FM and the WBNI callsign (sic) is currently available to be assigned by the FCC to an AM station.
I hope this clears everything up. If for some reason you still feel these moves are not valid/cannot be completed, please let me know so I can take the necessary steps to get them moved via non-speedy methods, as the naming conventions at WP:WPRS are very clear on all these matters (and trust me, a large chunk of my edits over the last month have been making these moves to make sure all station articles adhere properly).
Nevermind. Apparently a small selection of my speedy requests have been denied for similiar reasons. Looks like I'll have to clutter up WP:RM again (despite previously being told to use {{db-g6}} instead) *sigh* JPG-GR06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I recall I didn't quite get that you were attempting to get them moved over; my initial reaction was that you were just trying to get the redirects deleted (apparently something that confused another admin as well), and so I reverted the edits. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a bit more outrageous (and added a comment confirming that I'm joking). That should kill any doubts. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...hmm, you have a good point. If someone can oppose self-noms on principle, I should be able to oppose people for not having 100,000 edits! EVula// talk // ☯ //21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a policy stating that I shouldn't use profanity in edit summaries, otherwise I will consider this to be merely your personal preference and respectfully ignore it. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe Haha. Gorrilla, Godzilla, George Bush. The more the deadly. AAAhhhh. I found your edits to be really funny. Have a good day.RuneWiki77723:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked this user the other day for 3RR and I thought I'd come to you about him because I'm not quite sure what to do. If you check out his recent contribs you'll see he's still edit warring over fair use images and being rude and overbearing. Also check out this thread, which I'm not quite sure to make of. I'd assume that he's joking with that last comment but it seems very disruptive. As well as that, he has racist 'jokes' on his user page. He's pretty much ignoring every word of advice that people give him. Is there something we can do? It's making the work me and others do on RHCP articles much more difficult. Kamryn Matika16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User warned about NPA for the racist bit. I don't care about the racist jokes on his userpage, as they are easily ignored by not visiting the page. I'll try to keep an eye on the article talk page, and deal with Xihix accordingly. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, I'm not a bureaucrat (don't worry, I can't spell that word to save my life either), though I hope to submit an RfB at some point in the very near future. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user that keeps vandalizing Paul Harris (basketball). I have reverted it twice (it has been vandalized four times overall) and he keeps coming up with different usernames to edit. He keeps adding the phrase "has a very good friend in harlem new york Daniel Javier a guard at Thurgood Marshall Academy has sing a letter of intent to play at Army next year." Please help. Thanks. Chengwes23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the award EVula, the whole flameviper situation has given me a lot to think about. I still believe in time he can be a constructive contributor, he certainly has a lot to give, maybe when the maturity level grows he can return and be an asset to our project. I'm just dissapointed he betrayed the trust I had in him, especially commenting with a sock to try and get his block lifted - oh well, life moves on. Cheers again - Ryan Postlethwaite10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the second thread until it was already closed. I read the bit about being re-blocked for using the puppet, and just hung my head. Maybe in another year or so we can consider unblocking him, but no time soon. *sigh* EVula// talk // ☯ //13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the suitability is an issue, which we were discussing at the article talk page, but it was not the point here. What I asked was just because a screenshot was copied off a web page, does it become a copyvio regardless of everything else? Yeah, I know the policy and as I interpret it, its not (assuming its irreplaceable and has a valid FUR). I just want to know if my interpretation is missing anything.
I would also like my actions regarding Mac OS X v10.5 article reviewed. I was asked to take a look at the content (screenshot) dispute in the article (which is not one that I edit regularly). I saw edit warring over screenshots and that neither party was willing to talk, I protected the article to get them to talk, and unprotected it some half an hour later when the discussion had commenced, and removed the offending images (which looked somewhat inappropriate to me) pending consensus and then got involved in the discussion. --soumtalk16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats something, shall I say, ridiculous. We spend so much time making sure we dont violate Apple's copyrights, when they dont give a damn about ours!!! --soumtalk17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if only we could vindictively use the previously deleted images! :) As for everything else, I'll have to check it out later; I'm at work, and try (sometimes successfully) to keep my wikiing to a minimum. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question was nominated for deletion less than a month ago. There are clear indications that it is potentially divisive and problematic. --Ghirla-трёп-17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing around accusations of a conspiracy (that Wikipedia is controlled by a group of admins with access to that particular IRC channel) is trolling. An MfD nomination is completely irrelevant; there are plenty of pages that require additional work, but the editors don't make sweeping blanket statements of paranoia. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! After reading all the insults and violent threats on your userpage, I just had to show you some WikiLove. It's the weepy bleeding-heart pacifist in me I guess. Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks very much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250thadministrator. Your comments were much appreciated, and I will endeavour to fulfil your expectations as an admin.
*bows* I do try. :) (I've also netted myself four Barnstars of Good Humor... I might be as close to a "class clown" as we've got around here) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sure wouldn't mind being born then. But I also don't mind being born on what turns out to be Vanuatu's Independence Day—and I share a birthday with Emily Brontë, Hilary Swank, and…Arnold Schwarzenegger! :D — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now if you can only get invited to a joint birthday party! Well, of Swank and Schwarzenegger... a party with Brontë probably wouldn't be particularly lively. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.
You know, I've been impressed with how often your comments make sense. Much more often than mine. I'd give you a barnstar, but I regard them as the Devil's Own Virtual Decorations. MastCellTalk04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, thanks! But uh... what page did I revert on that caught your attention? I've got no clue what "Ta 183" is. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EVula. these comments were spot on. The applicant was a lad of 15, and I spent a lot of time in discussion gently trying to tell him that his RfA had no chance. I think you premature closing was fully justified, and I'm delighted you took the time to explain it in such a pleasent fashion. The last thing we need is to lose good editors and future potential admins! Pedro | Chat 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but I think that closing it early is better, in the long run, than letting it run its course and end up with forty "Oppose" !votes. I wrote up {{User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA}} for situations just like this one. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with your SNOWballing of this RFA. I did want to comment that, when I did something similar, the RFA candidate objected and the advice that I got from other editors was to let the RFA run. It seems some RFA candidates like to use the RFA process as a kind of editor review.
Thus, in practice, I think it is better to ask the candidate to withdraw and, if that fails, let the "pile on" continue so that the candidate gets the point. If nothing else, the candidate learns to withdraw when counseled to do so.
Trust me, it wasn't the snap decision that some of my RfA closures, such as U-Two's was. I thought about it, but in the end, decided that it was better to give Zach a more serious (and productive) shock by closing the RfA rather than allow it to degenerate to a possible negative (and entirely unproductive) situation that could easily be considered a WP:BITE violation.
As for editors wanting their RfAs to be editor reviews... well, that's not what RfA is for. There are plenty of other avenues to use for feedback (which is why I've loaded up User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA with those links). I'd be tempted to close those RfAs on principle alone. :)EVula// talk // ☯ //21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If after comparing the edits of the two a pattern is formed, that'd be a good reason to request a checkuser; I generally don't assume sock puppetry without either a checkuser or some damn strong evidence. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm kind of glad that you closed it, but I certainly wanted more comments (good or bad, it makes me strive to improve myself). However, know that I bear no ill feeling whatsoever to you for closing my RfA. I went there to see how I would fare, and now that I know, well...I'll try again. Cheers!!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd recommend you use some of the other systems in place (such as the admin coaching program) rather than pushing through an RfA for which you (I hate to say it, but) are rather unprepared for. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could talk to the deleting administrator and ask them to restore it for you, though you'd probably have to make an argument to them for its restoration. EVula// talk // ☯ //05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a highly technical term. I love Wikipedia, but it's got it's own language for everything it seems... EVula// talk // ☯ //05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, awesome. I started making that list just because I thought it was funny, but I've gotten plenty of positive reaction to my little list. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which, in my opinion, is a perfectly valid opinion (even though you're wrong). Just because we disagree about this one (ultimately minor) point doesn't mean I don't adore you as an editor any less. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey EVula, been a while since I've seen you. We used to banter in #ev3 on the ambrosia IRC server back when EV Nova was fresh and new. I was BobEx. I saw you this morning in the edit log, thought I'd drop by and say hi.
As it turns out, I'm an absolute newb at wiki-ing, and forgot to sign, dispite the 30+ warnings to sign your posts everywhere. Ravanacker16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, yeah, that's a name I hadn't seen in a while. How ya doin'? :) Don't worry about the signing bit... I've been here for a year and a half, and I still catch myself almost hitting "save" without signing... EVula// talk // ☯ //16:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing well, graduated college, looking for work, along with the rest of my classmates, suckers. I ended up in #ev3 again for some random reason the other day, things haven't changed much at all. Kind of refreshing. How about you? Ravanacker16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing fine, though between being busy in real life and the digital crack that is Wikipedia (I'm about to break 19k edits), I've been around the Ambrosia boards (and #ev3) less and less... EVula// talk // ☯ //16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly never would have guessed that I would have gotten as hard-core about Wikipedia as I've gotten. It's bizarre. EVula// talk // ☯ //16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey EVula, was just about to drop you a note. The change in code for the colour made the background completely black for me (so you couldn't read the words). I use Internet Explorer 7 (yeah, I know - shame on me...) ... :) WjBscribe16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I think I'd shit a brick if IE actually rendered CSS the way that every other browser does. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol. I'd promise to change browser for you but I suspect we'd still have plenty of users who still wouldn't have seen the light ;-). WjBscribe16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, yeah, the shortcut came up from a conversation on IRC, where I was joking about wanting my own personal policy for overriding everyone else. :) Hmm, maybe I'll start slipping it into my deletion reasons when I help clear out CAT:CSD... "I've never heard of your band. And A7." EVula// talk // ☯ //03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would appreciate for you to not revert my edits like you have done with the Bugman case. I was requesting a case to be deleted which was a duplicate of another case. It doesn't matter because I am not a clerk anymore. Thanks. Miranda10:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I wasn't reverting you per se, I was just opting to make it a redirect, rather than make the requested deletion. EVula// talk // ☯ //13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would not have been necessary in this case, because the case was merged into a main case with the main sockpuppets. End of conversation. Miranda16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
My dear EV, tho I'm a little swamped with messages and with very little spare time for obvious reasons, there was no way on Earth I could leave your charming words unreplied. First, thank you for your kind thoughts regarding my baby, dear - tho I'm still worried (hey, I'm a mom! ;) but thanks God, the worst part is over.
It makes me so incredibly happy to know you liked the little gift I gave you a while ago. I knew you like humor, and in fact you've made me laugh more times than I can remember with your words; and having read your thoughts many times, the minute I saw that poem I thought "this IS EVula!" ;) Knowing you had a show that day made it even better. To think that I played even a tiny role in making that day enjoyable, one you will remember as time passes, is such a beautiful thought, moreso for wonderful person like you. The userbox for those I award a day made me giggle and blush like a little girl, btw! :) I don't think I'm worthy of deserving that... as long as you're the only one using it, I think I'm safe tho! ;)
I hope that, although we have spoken a little, your beautiful message marks the true beginning of a friendship, for special people like you only cross one's path on few ocassions. So I'll shut up for now, and save more words for our next talk - by now, you surely have observed verbosity is my greatest defect ;) Just a couple of words before giving you a great, big virtual hug: best of luck with your RfB - you'll prove Durin wrong when he said Cecropia's would be the last successful one for a year! ;) And second, your "I am always right" really made me laugh. Here's my own interpretation of it a la Asimov...
EVula is always right.
You may discuss with EVula, except where such discusion would conflict with the First Law.
You are free to do as you want as long as your actions do not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Alright. I'm a bit busy at the moment (I still need to properly reply to Phaedriel's comment above, plus respond to the three oppose comments I've yet to address), plus I'm at work (and shouldn't be wikiying at all, but whatever). I'll get to it as soon as possible. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, for a while it looked like you might be the first candidate in a while to make it, but you are working really hard at not making it. Half your opposes aren't for what you wrote at AN/I that time, they're for what you're writing at RfB right now!
May I suggest something, if you really feel you have to respond to every oppose?
Thank you for that constructive criticism. I am afraid that I still disagree, though. May we discuss it in greater detail at my talk page?
Realize that not every person giving their opinion will be able to read your whole debate thoroughly - they'll skim, and if most of what they see is you arguing fiercely with half a dozen people, they will think you're combative.
Yeah, I've found that my usual way of responding to people (you know, directly) just isn't being seen in a favorable light. It's highly frustrating, since that's just what makes the most sense to me... bleh. I've eventually (though possibly too late) realized that I should just shut my mouth and concentrate more on the questions than the opposition comments.
At this point, I'm just leaving the RfB open so I can get a better sense for areas I need to improve (such as thinking out my statements a bit better :D) for my next RfB (which won't be for several more months), as I'd be surprised if this one actually passed. It's a damn shame, since I think the 'crats are overworked and I could help them out, but so be it; I'd be remiss if I talked about respecting consensus and then turned right around and wanted to ignore it. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Mouse here (as always)... though you seem to have cut down on that, it would be wise to accept it, nod, and just try to pick up the lesson in the criticism... and if there isn't any, trust that others will see that as well as you do :) Riana(talk)17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think the "if there isn't any" is just hopeful optimism, as I'm quite willing to accept that there's plenty of room for improvement. :D I have actually gotten several good leads on what I need to improve; aside from Mouse's sound advice to not respond to everyone, I think the largest issue is the fact that I need to chose my words more carefully; my particular brand of humor is not always the most well received. Visviva gave me some excellent out-of-left-field advice about getting involved in in/formal mediation to work on my dispute resolution chops; once real life calms down some (I just got cast in a show last night, and subsequently will have rehearsals for the next month or so), I fully intend on checking it out. So, even if/when the RfB fails, I'll at least have gotten a good deal out of it. Not a total loss, in my estimation. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've been thinking this over all day, and I've come to a rediculous conclusion: if RfAs and RfBs are supposed to be discussions, what's wrong with me responding to the people who oppose my RfB? I've been looking over, for example, my response to Dmcdevit, which is just how I handle practically any discussion (on XfD, on a talk page, on RfAs where I disagree with the argument, anywhere). I realize that it was more of my comment towards Ghirla that got me in hot water, but the overall advice about not responding (while it is most certainly what I should have done, no argument there) is somewhat at odds with what I perceive as the whole purpose of the process. *shrug* A part of me wishes I could get a conditional 'cratship; instant-ban if I promote anybody or apply a bot flag (until I ran a fully successful RfB), but I'd get the ability to change names. I'd be quite happy about that, but if I could make wishes happen, I'd also have myself win the lotto, too. :D EVula// talk // ☯ //04:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I agree. However, responding on the RfB itself always seems a little confrontational... good RfA candidates have had their RfAs scuppered for daring to question opposes. I personally really, really wish people would use the talkpage more if there are issues that need to be discussed - it seems to be a highly overlooked page :) If this thing goes through, I'd rather you didn't have half-cratship, I think you'd do well with the whole bit ;) I don't believe in not responding at all... but if it's the same argument presented more than once, I don't see why it's necessary to reply more than once. Or maybe I'm tired and not making sense, and nothing I'm saying is right :) Riana(talk)16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, what you say makes sense, or otherwise I'm tired as well... which would be bad, saying as I've been at work for a few hours. :) What I think I'll do is make up a quick list in my sandbox of the issues raised in the RfB. Then I'll look at it about once a month to see how I'm faring as far as addressing those concerns. If I can do two months back-to-back where I feel that I've eliminated those concerns, I'll re-apply. It's highly formulaic, but I think that that sort of approach will work best for me. EVula// talk // ☯ //16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's agreement that responses to opposes are more common and acceptable in RfBs than RfAs. I'm not sure the opposes are just because EVula has responded to the opposers (for example I don't think there is any issue with the response to Dmcdevit) rather the way EVula has responded to them. Sorry, EV - apparently "being a b'crat is a bit like being a priest"... Do we have any of those editing the project? WjBscribe16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and this is me biting my fingers to keep from making a priest sex joke that would certainly tank my RfB a hell of a lot further. :D I'm willing to concede that my response to Ghirla didn't help, but the way people were phrasing things, it seemed like it was "my responses" that caused the problem, and at that point, I'd only responded to Ghirla, Dmcdevit, and Xoloz. *shrug* Like I said, at least I can get a lesson out of all this. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new section in the RfB section, because it's about your RfB, but not about the conversation above.
I think that you will be a great 'crat, and I wish you great luck in this RfB. It seemed like a landslide of supports at first, making me think you'd be a shoe-in, but a couple of opposes have been coming. =( I hope that it goes back uphill again, and you will be WP's next great 'crat. Cheers! hmwith talk20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Like I said above, at this point, I'd be surprised if it ended up passing, but at least I've got some good ideas of where I need to focus my attention before attempting again. Worst case scenario seems to be that Wikipedia will get a better bureaucrat. Not too shabby. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a user who has previously been in contact with this person, I am asking if you would be willing to be the second person to certify the basis for this dispute. Thank you. The Evil Spartan20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with the basis of this RfC. However, responding to it properly requires more attention and time than I have right now; I'll take a look at it later tonight. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, EVula. Thanks for your comment on my AN/I. You may want to check the user's recent contributions to this article. The personal attacks have stopped, for the moment, but, at the least, it's WP:CRYSTAL. The show isn't filming new episodes at the moment to allow other countries (the US and Canada, which is airing its season debut in July) a chance to catch up to England, which is steadily showing new episodes. At most, it seems the user wants an edit war. I have reverted his latest reversion and given him the opportunity to provide evidence. There is no third party evidence that I can see which supports this, from either Lazytown.biz or nickjr.com. Also, the LazyTown article has not been revised, AFAIK, to reflect this. Going to check now. Thanks.-- Ispy198122:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[en] As a dedicated Wikimedian, I don't limit myself to just one project or just one language.](/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg?lang=en){kind=logo}
Relevant discussion at
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg?lang=en)