Jump to content

User talk:EVula/Apr-Jun 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of EVula's past discussions. You can't edit the contents of this page, so nyah.

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, head over to User talk:EVula instead.

This archive contains comments posted between April 2009 and June 2009.

Need a third-party admin

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you're online, so I figured I'd come to you with this. Coheed and Cambria is subject to a POV-pusher removing sourced information on genres because s/he believes they're "not emo"; moreover, the IP has performed vandalism in the last 24 hours, albeit not enough to constitute a block. The IP is also in violation of 3RR, but I don't want to slip into violation myself with another revert. IP: User talk:209.211.21.2. Thanks in advance. — Deckiller 04:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I talked to another admin via IM. — Deckiller 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed all that; I was only on-wiki to kill time until a friend showed up. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, wow! You have quite the list of responsibilities now (B-crat to name a few). I have some catching up to do :-P — Deckiller 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... unfortunately, Real Life has thrown me for one hell of a loop, and I'm delinquent in several of them (hell, I edited a whopping two times in the entire month of March). I might pare back on some of them, sadly. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again

[edit]

Got what you said. Aye-aye, sir. I'll do my best to not do bad. How am I doing right now? If you can, can you regularily tell me how I'm doing? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, please look at my talk page. I've already contacted one of my administrator associates, and his reply may be forthcoming. I'm not going to take this shit any longer; he needs a permanent block. He even went to the extent to comment on my sister's page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstallion has said he'll report him at WP:AN/I. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning placed on WeezleBeezle's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. He's also been going to some other users' pages proudly proclaiming his un-blocked status, as well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, but that isn't nearly as actionable as, saying, calling into question how you could be a Christian and bi. (As an aside, I just realized you're a fellow thespian. There's a lot of us on Wikipedia...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi, EVula. I'm Korean Wikipedia Admin. Kys951. When I watch the recent changes, "EVula = E(...)" is created in Korean Wikipedia continuous. I don't know what is happening. I block off the "EVula = E(... - hide the user name. I think it is your information.)." --Kys951 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and for keeping my secret identity secret. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey :-)

[edit]

I saw your name on WP:CHU when I looked at my watchlist. It's nice to have you back :-) J.delanoygabsadds 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks! I'm happy to be back. Real Life kicked my ass for a little bit, and I've gotten entirely out of my wiki-groove. I've yet to return to some of my other haunts (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc), but at least I'm editing again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat

[edit]

I have nominated Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –xeno (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the rename on my alternate account. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right

[edit]

Totally sorry. It wasn't meant for harassment. You're absolutely right. Thanks for informing me on my status. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for forgiving me. Will you still take up my ask to watch my progress? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may check on you on occasion, but I've got plenty of other obligations (Real Life, oversight, bureaucratship, administrative posts on several other wikis) that I can't promise you anything.
Really, all I want you to do is contribute to the encyclopedia; the vast majority of your edits are not to the point of Wikipedia, which is why you're still on thin ice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx

[edit]

Hey EVula, thanks for the clarification on the RfA talk page. Thought I was seeing a 96k Elephant in the AN room, and would rather see situations deescalated before they get bigger. Thought maybe if the "Expressing opinions" sections was tweaked a bit, it could solve a few things like the current issues, as well as the previous Kurt issues. (nope, wasn't here for that one). I'll trust your judgment with no qualms, and let it lie. Hey, if Lara trusts you, you must be doing something right. ;) Best — Ched :  ?  17:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of thing that's a very fine line; I don't like the idea of flat-out saying "having an opinion we don't like will get you gone", though I do understand that a single-RFA-minded opinion harped on over and over is obnoxious, and it should be met with some sort of reaction, especially when they adamantly refuse to acknowledge community desire that they knock it off. My comment was definitely not directed at you specifically, though, so sorry if you felt targeted. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
naaa .. not at all. I was just concerned that someone might view my post as trying to poke a hornet's nest. Not something I care to do. Actually, I'm glad you also confirmed my suspicions that at least one bureaucrat doesn't pay attention to off topic reasoning. In that respect, I'm glad I asked, and you clarified. I'd like to think that by the time you folks get to that level, you've seen enough to handle things in an informed and mature fashion. Best ;) — Ched :  ?  17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely consider this to be an instance where I wish the community would have a bit more faith in us and just leave it alone. :) I can't speak for all my fellow 'crats, but I'm very conservative when it comes to dismissing individual arguments. For stuff like Kurt's prima facie argument or this, there's abundant evidence that those opinions are decidedly not what the community desires, so I feel comfortable dismissing them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :)

[edit]

—LedgendGamer has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I noticed your username on some page somewhere (I have no idea which one, horrible memory for that sort of stuff) and decided to do a bit of snooping. I decided that I liked your sense of humor and you seem like a nice person, so here's a cookie. —LedgendGamer 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, it's always nice to be appreciated. :D Have a great weekend! EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at m:Talk:Interwiki map#Google.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.
Er, alright. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at m:Talk:Interwiki map#Google.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.
Responded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Common.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback isn't needed; I have the page on my watchlist and am following the conversation. However, it also looks like it's pretty much been shot down. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dog

[edit]

Versus and I are just messing around. Funnyman390 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I'd already semi'ed the pages. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might actually be a Grawp sock (or some other derivative surely related called Fang) that seems to vandalize by using that image - see this diff as an example; some were already blocked. -- Mentifisto 01:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

[edit]

Hi, a couple of weeks ago someone apparently created four outing accounts about you. Just thought you'd like to know... Jafeluv (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's hilarious. Those details are so amazingly easy to find by piecing together on-wiki evidence, I'm amazed that someone bothered creating those accounts.
Anyway, I suppose I should work my block and oversight voodoo on them, just for good measure... EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[comment oversighted] –xeno talk 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble tea!

[edit]

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Well, I actually hate tea, but I definitely appreciate the sentiment, and won't hold it against you. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

[edit]

Lol I've got no proof :( -PirateSmackK (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least make me a rollbacker? PirateSmackK (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...no clue what you're talking about with the "proof" business. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You asked me to prove I was an IP at WT:RFA didn't you? I realize my RfA wouldn't pass anyway so I got it deleted. Now give me rollback! PirateSmackK (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Keep in mind that I make lots of edits, and can't necessarily remember everything; context is always helpful.
As for granting rollback, I see no reason to do so. You're a very new user, and rollback is only granted once some evidence of consistent good judgement has been shown. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not a "very new user"? -PirateSmackK (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you weren't; you are, but I didn't point that out as I'd be willing to grant rollback to a new enwiki editor if they had considerable wiki experience on another WMF project. You don't, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And apart from that, this[1] is very bad form. Yintaɳ  22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that would be a strike against the aforementioned "consistent good judgement" that is required to get rollback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed some of my concerns at User_talk:Taxman#admin (dif [2]). I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on the subject, either there or on my Talkpage. Thanks, Yintaɳ  10:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. I don't think he has long before someone shuffles him off the wiki coil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a month now and I'm still here on teh wiki coil ^_^ Rollback please? --PirateSmackKArrrr! 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link certainly fills me with optimistic joy at your good intentions! ~ mazca t|c 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Please assume good faith instead PirateSmackK (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF has not been violated. Given some of your edits, I have ample reason to hold my opinion. However, nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong about you; are you up to the challenge? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to do if others let me to PirateSmackK (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is stopping you but yourself. You pestered everyone under the sun for rollback, then promptly abused the privilege when it was granted to you. You can edit just fine without it; I suggest you do so, if you're truly serious about proving to everyone that you can positively contribute to the project. (I was able to make more than nine thousand edits without rollback before I became an admin, and it was without Twinkle or any other automated system; it is possible) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'll have to do without rollback. I think I misused it unintentionally as that was the fastest way to revert and I was mad. Don;t you get mad when someone reverts you and "identifies" it as vandalism? :@ PirateSmackK (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

[edit]

Hi EVula, can you confirm it is you who has signed up for The Wikipedia Forum with your username? Thanks. dottydotdot (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, 'tis me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PirateSmackK

[edit]

Hmm, hadn't noticed that. His use of rollback so far seems to be alright; if I see anything questionable I'll remove the rights. Thanks for letting me know, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching him as well, and I doubt we two are the only ones. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you'd think that. ;) (context) — Ched :  ?  08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I... Yintaɳ  15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] –Juliancolton | Talk 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVULA proves true once again! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verrry bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateSmackK (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, us "other Wikipedians" must stick together. ;) Yintaɳ  18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing RfD tags.

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Template:Battlestar Galactica regulars. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Remember, you can always use the What links here button to determine if there are any transclusions not yet converted to the new template by another editor. Thanks for your concern! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSquadronRaven (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh...WP:DTTR... i've half a mind to template you back for not signing! =) –xeno talk 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, welcome to Wikipedia, EVula! :) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...this entire thread makes me chuckle. Just the thing I needed after having lunch with an ex-girlfriend. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine about the template, though, you could have easily seen that I removed all transclusions before listing it at RfD by using "What links here". Cheers. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a delay between transclusions being removed and them being de-listed from the "What links here" page. I could see you were working towards it, but had no way of verifying it. As it is, I think putting it up at RfD is silly; redirects are cheap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hi. I was recently bored, and wound up clicking my merry way unto User:EVula/fun. I was so entertained that I wound up reading just about every page in your userspace... I find it imperative that you become my friend. Immediately. The level of friendly wit in my life has been utterly lacking!

On a more serious note, I was actually thinking about doing a sort of informal editor review, and was hoping that a distinguished admin/crat/all sorts of cool functionary stuff guy such as yourself would mind looking over my wikisoul and giving me a few pointers on where to adjust my energies and focus. Think of it as if you were evaluating me for an RfA; and I would much appreciate your constructive criticism. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After your opening volley full of such compliments, how could I not make you a member of my entourage? ;)
As for the informal editor review, I'd be happy to... just not quite yet. I'm heading into a crazy-busy weekend. But if you can wait until next week, I'll gladly steal look over your wikisoul. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BONK you with a hammer!!! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup yup, never a band thing to remind me. I tend to get busy easily, so I often forget about things... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I am proud of the fact that I waited five full days to bug you. That doesn't bode too well, does it? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's more restraint than I could probably show. :)
Anyway, I'm hoping to have time to sit down and check you out (wiki-wise) on Saturday. Maybe this evening, though, since my plans are still up in the air. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adendum to ask a question: I recently found this tool, and I was pretty confused for a few minutes. I know I've never edited Wikipedia in another language, and yet I have edits? Can the other projects "import" part of an English article and steal its edit history? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Yes, it's exactly that - see Help:Import, it's a function that's available in the software but it's not enabled on en-wiki. I know de-wiki do import articles; no doubt several others do as well. It can indeed lead to the confusing effect you've noticed. ~ mazca t|c 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the same thing happen to me. Mazca's pretty spot-on about what happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting point

[edit]

You mention about a minor edit not being as important as extensive edits.

If this is the case, then there are some people writing a whole lot but getting no recognition, at least no more than the minor edit people. Let's discuss this here to clarify things. It may be clear to you but there are some disjointed, potentially good ideas that isn't clear to me yet.

Should the top 5 or 10 authors be noted for each article, perhaps by a separate tab or some other mechanism? If not, why not? Or should we deny credit to all authors (probably not!).

This seems like an interesting area to think about! User F203 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no baseline for "top editor" for a page. The most content added? Someone that pastes-in copyvios over and over (without being caught) would have the top honors, despite little (if any) of their content being used in the "real" version of the article. The most edits? Someone that doesn't use the Preview button and makes a hundred minor edits (or even just self-reverts) would be considered the one of the "top authors" for the article, despite their net impact on the article being fairly minor. Then there are the anonymous editors, which by virtue of their being logged-out when they make the edits, cannot truly be given the credit they may be due (especially as a single person could edit under several different IP addresses over time). I've already mentioned that not all edits to an article are actually considered worthwhile from an authorship standpoint (that includes not just vandals, but also vandalism reversions, as well as bot work, interwiki maintenance, table transclusion updates, maintenance tables being inserted and removed, etc).
There just a lot of non-authorship stuff that happens to your typical Wikipedia article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise the point of "top editor". That's fine. Rather than say that this is a problem so we ignore the issue, how about recognizing all authors? Perhaps ranked by number of contributions to the article or listed another way. The way it is now, the history is an incredibly bad way and a dis-service to the top editors. It only lists the most recent edits.

Can you think of a solution! User F203 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing all authors? Same issues apply as recognizing just the top author. Everyone makes different types of contributions. Besides, the goal of Wikipedia isn't to bring glory to its contributors; if people want excessive recognition for their work, they should go somewhere else. Individuals can already highlight their personal contributions on their userpages (which I used to do at User:EVula/Contributions, though it's hopelessly out of date at this point), and there are tools to find out who has edited a particular page the most (I don't have that link handy on this computer, though), but outside of that, I don't see much need to highlight who did what; not only is that not the point of Wikipedia, but your average reader doesn't care, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. One trouble of having no authors is that if there is a bad article, it makes Wikipedia look bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_Social_Citizens_List is not anywhere near the worse article (if one looks, one could find really bad articles).
Also you wrote "I don't see much need to highlight who did what; not only is that not the point of Wikipedia". I respect the opinion cited in the first phrase. The second phrase is just a personal opinion, not official Wikipedia policy.
Anyway, nice to have these deep thoughts with you. Have a nice day. User F203 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll readily admit that it's just my personal opinions that authors don't need to be highlighted. For example, I am, without a doubt, the most significant contributor to The Zombie Survival Guide and Hannah's Gift (in their current forms). However, I feel no need for my name (alias or real name) to be attached to either of those articles for the benefit of the end-user. I didn't write them because I wanted the recognition; I wrote the first because I'm a huge fan of the book, and I wrote the second to save it from deletion. I will, however, readily take credit for the articles (as I'm doing right now, actually!). I think most dedicated Wikipedia editors have similar attitudes; they don't require recognition (to the point where I don't believe they'd care for a specific "top authors" tab either), but will definitely brag about it in userspace, which is where that recognition belongs (as in, we should receive intra-project recognition, but not extra-project recognition; to the end user, the source should just be Wikipedia, but the history page is there for those that do indeed want to peek behind the curtains).
As for Trade Union Social Citizens List, usually such short articles are tagged as "stubs" to better illustrate to the end user that it's a short article (though you can tell just by looking at it, heh). I've tagged it with {{Denmark-election-stub}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the page history tool.[4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]

I've e-mailed you on a matter of discretion. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to bother you, ut could you send again? Something went haywire. Dlohcierekim 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resend it thru Special:EmailUser, just to be on the safe side. Email sent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O. I thought U were 1. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If I were, it'd just make the "power-hungry dictator" argument about me all the more valid. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Redirect

[edit]

For some reason, If you search "I'm Back", it redirects to "Ashley Tisdale". I don't know why, but it's unusual. I can't delete, I don't know another place to put it, and if I leave "I"m Back" blank, people will yell at me. Any suggestions? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisions of the redirect provide the answers you seek... [5] –xeno talk 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever get redirected, look for the gray "(Redirected from [whatever])" beneath the title. If you click that link, it'll take you to the redirect page, and from there you can view the history like any other article.
Anyway, I've updated the redirect to point to the (at the time, unnamed) album that the song is on. Hope that fixes it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Chet

[edit]

User talk:Coffee#Update on Chet. لennavecia 01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your text message, responded both there and on-wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PiE!

[edit]
File:Pie.jpeg

PirateSmackKArrrr! has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I don't know who to go to

[edit]

For some reason, my subscription for the Signpost hasn't been coming or has been coming days late. I don't know who to go to, and I'm not good at using websites beyond Wikipedia. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd. Try removing and re-adding yourself from the list, perhaps that'd help. At the very least, posting a "please help" thread on the talk page there might get you a more helpful response than mine.
Failing that, you could just watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and visit it whenever it gets changed. Its not like not getting the Signpost is the end of the world. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. I know it's now the end of the world. Thanks for the advice. Actually, I don't know how the Watchlist works beyond the the thing that says "watch" and the thing that says "my watchlist". I could try removing my name and putting it back, like you said. Thank you. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon now

[edit]

I will not abuse rollback I promise --PirateSmackKArrrr! 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon indeed. This is getting ridiculous [6], [7]... Yintaɳ  20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to your friends is not against policy. I can remove messages from my talk page see WP:BLANKING also I apologize of undoing the edit, there was a misunderstanding regarding famous/WP:N on my part and have replied on the user's talk page PirateSmackKArrrr! 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- Don't play dumb, please. I am obviously referring to your constant asking for rollback, adminship and now an RFA nomination, while you had an RFA deleted and rollback rights removed just weeks ago. I never said talking was against policy (duh!), it's what you're saying that's surreal. And if you so desperately want to become an admin, it might be a good idea to start communicating properly. Every message I ever left on your Talkpage is removed within minutes and never answered (or archived) [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Admins are supposed to talk to people. Finally, I hope you don't mind that I have trouble believing the words "famous" and "notable" confuse you. Lars T. quite rightly removed[14] the userpage you added[15] to the Alison article. One minute you're quoting WP policy of the cuff, the next you're the clueless newbie? Sorry, I simply don't buy it anymore. Apologies for using your Talkpage for this EVula, but it's obviously the only way I can communicate with mr SmackK. Yintaɳ  23:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF kKthx PirateSmackKArrrr! 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop quoting AGF every time someone disagrees with you over your edits. It shows (to me) that you have little comprehension of the criticism you're being given, and doesn't really make me want to give you rollback any more than I already do or don't. Coming back in a month's time if you haven't grown as a Wikipedian won't do you any good; maturity is more important than chronological time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed; I don't mind my talkpage seeing more action... regardless of how dirty that sounded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been less than two weeks since you had rollback removed. I'm not going to grant it so quickly after it was taken away. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I'll come back in a month from now.. PirateSmackKArrrr! 05:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you come back when you can prove that you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not after an arbirtary time period. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OKay PirateSmackKArrrr! 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]





I have assumed good faith for quite a while, even when you slammed a huge trout on my Talkpage because you didn't agree with a (valid) speedy delete nomination I made[16]. Another user who received the same treatment immediately gave you a vandalism warning[17], I left a polite note on your Talkpage (which you ignored of course). I think my Good Faith glands started to run a little dry when I saw you tagged an article as {{db-fagottry}}[18] and moved another editor's userpage to "Pedobear"[19]. When you later pretended to be a clerk[20] I gave up. Your actions since haven't given me much reason to think I'm unreasonable. There's only so much Good Faith I can (and am willing to) produce. Yintaɳ  09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gift

[edit]

bahamut0013wordsdeeds has given you a B83 variable yield thermonuclear bomb! B83 variable yield thermonuclear bombs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a B83 variable yield thermonuclear bomb, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy burning!

Spread the goodness of B83 variable yield thermonuclear bomb by adding {{B83 variable yield thermonuclear bomb}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or use this B83 variable yield thermonuclear bomb to raze the giver's talk page with {{Mutually Assured Destruction}}!

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

[edit]

This is a question that was asked here and was moved here at EVula's suggestion. How many warnings (and what type) need to be given to vandals before they are reported to AIV? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator discretion is often used (i.e. for blatant abuse, blocks without warning aren't uncommon), but generally, four recent escalating warnings is appropriate. –xeno talk 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation (at simple) began because Juliancolton banned a user (indef) after the user vandalized. The user had been given one warning (lvl 1) by a bot. Juliancolton said that he had been banned because he was a VOA (vandalism only account). He said that in the case of a VOA, a ban is automatic and without warning. The user in question had 3 edits total (all vandalism).Griffinofwales (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him whether I could do the same (i.e. report a VOA that only had one warning) and be successful at AIV. That is where the above question came up. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the user that redirected the religion to an inappropriate location, then I'd say it was fine and no warning was necessary, and an AIV report would've likely been successful –xeno talk 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the link I posted above, EVula says that in the case of vandalism, a level 1 warning should be skipped in favor of a level 2, or in a really bad case in favor of a level 3. Should I adopt this "policy" also? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I either don't bother issuing a warning (hoping they'll just get bored - sometimes warnings spur them on... of course as an administrator I can afford to do this because I could just issue a rouge block if it doesn't work), but when I do warn, I'm like EVula in that I usually start at L2 or L3. However, for gentle vandalism, I might start with {{welcome-vandal}} or a L1. –xeno talk 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is another case at simple located here where an admin (Barras) banned a user after 3 edits. The user's first warning was a level 4 warning. Juliancolton agreed with the decision. Can that be put into practice here? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already is. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only use level 1 when it's not obviously a malicious edit. However, more often than not, I shoot with a level 2 warning first. "Malicious" is the key word when dealing with vandalism; if it's someone that's just saying "hi bobby" or "this is cool" or other such simple vandalism[21], those are obviously just dumb kids playing with the wiki system. Folk that add something a bit less feasible (such as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse being "ballsack"[22]) deserve no latitude. Xeno's comment about not bothering to warn drive-by vandals is pretty spot-on; vandalism is done for attention, and the less you give them, the less fun it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I can do that and be successful? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be successful? I don't know. But you most definitely won't be successful if you don't try in the first place. That is advice that greatly transcends AIV. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the point being made here is to use your discretion. If you see blatant vandalism, go ahead and report to AIV and see how it goes. Most admins will block on sight for very blatant vandalism, such as malicious redirection of a religion to a DSM-IV diagnosis of sexual deviancy. And, if it turns out it wasn't blatant enough, it'll put the vandal on the radar. If you start reporting too early too often, I'm sure someone will let you know. –xeno talk 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: Blatant vandalism, start at lvl 2. Vandalism, start at lvl 1. Report to AIV after 2 warnings (Lvl 2 and Lvl 4?)? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over the top blatant vandalism doesn't even need warned. Drop a 4im and report to AIV immediately. –xeno talk 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a diff so I know exactly what you are talking about? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, Darth Vader sees a lot of vandalism.[23][24] The first one got just a warning from me because it was the only edit the IP had made, while the second one got a block immediately after reverting because of previous bad edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In both of those cases, should I warn the vandals with a 4im? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable since the Lord Vader is a fictional character, but I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash if you did. They're tending towards over-the-topness. –xeno talk 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So for the diffs above a level 3 or 4im would be acceptable. But I want diffs where I should use 4im. At simple (link is above), an admin gave a user a 4im warning for replacing the content of Naruto with 'AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!'. Should I do that? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use your judgement. It's not fair to you for xeno or myself to enforce our preferences on you; we're hardasses, but you may not necessarily be one. Experience will teach you how to handle vandals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "policy" is the sooner a vandal is blocked the better. So, in most cases I can give a 4im warning and get away with it, and then report them to AIV if they vandalize again (and get away with it)? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's particularly bad, yes, a 4im warning might fly. If it's the run-of-the-mill "hi billy!" kind of edit, though, that'd be a bit harsh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multi (edit conflict)) An edit like this would qualify for 4im and immediate AIV report, but something like [25] or [26] might warrant something softer. As EVula says, this is just a judgment call you'll have to acquire with time. I used to be a softie, I wouldn't necessarily call myself a "hardass" (quite yet ;>), after all I did unblock the user described here, but I don't necessarily coddle unrepentant blatant vandals with 4 warnings either. –xeno talk 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, attacks on users and people is 4im. Blatant vandalism starts at level 2. Vandalism starts at level 1. Correct? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting too hung up on specific definitions. Judgement is fluid. Blatant vandalism can sometimes start at level 2, sometimes at level 3. Sometimes vandalism starts at level 1, sometimes at level 2. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so in summary, it is my call but there are some general guidelines. Thanks, Xeno, Juliancolton, & EVula for putting up with all my questions. If you have more comments please take them to my talk page. EVula has more important things to do[citation needed]. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (tagged) ;> –xeno talk 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight assistance

[edit]

Would you be able to check out a thread at AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Second_Attempted_Outing) ? It appears that some edits were oversighted and I don't feel comfortable acting without the whole picture. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this topic before I left for the evening; it appears to be resolved, in as far as the need for an Oversighter is concerned. Am I correct? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just going to get someone make a punitive (not preventive) block on me :/ Thanks for your patience and help so far, EVula :) PirateSmackKArrrr! 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since every edit you make is marked as a minor edit and has no edit summary, so far as I can see, it would be a preventive block simply to stop you from doing this. Of course, if you started explaining and citing your edits, the issue would probably go away. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block for not using edit summaries? ROFL...and I do use edit summaries when really necessary
The articles I've created have inline citations if you take a look (Testicle Festival for example), dunno what kind of citations you are looking for. :/PirateSmackKArrrr! 14:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you kick me into the pit

[edit]

Seriously, that hurt man. By the way, I just you-proofed my RfA comment. Andre (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything better than the "omg serious" bureaucrats being silly? I posit No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Hai

[edit]

EVula, PirateSmackK 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Vandal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PirateSmackKArrrr! 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the MfD watchlisted, though I don't think anything's been said that actually needs a response on my part yet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name change

[edit]

I left a message in your Chinese account discuss page. "Please go ahead with the name change." -Hihihaha (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy, thanks. Rename performed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten

[edit]

PirateSmackKArrrr! has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANL YOU!

[edit]

Thank You so much for changing my username!--水の男の子 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year

[edit]

Did you know that it's now been an entire year since you were made a bureaucrat? The work that you've done in that time makes me glad I nominated you. In addition, since you received the oversight tool in the time, you can now make your socks and friends admins too, and then hide the logs. :D Seriously though, congratulations, and keep up the good work. Acalamari 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been that long? I thought it was sooner than that. –xenotalk 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arg, I did realize it had been a year, and I totally meant to drop you a line before you could do so for me. You're too thoughtful! :P
...that's a good idea about the socks thing, though... Hmm... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of here

[edit]

Because we had a lot of contact during the PirateSmackK episode I figured it'd be fair to let you know I'm quitting Wikipedia. I no longer believe this project has any chance of becoming a reliable, respected source of information. The endless vandalism and, more importantly, the community's refusal to battle it head-on (by introducing flagged revisions, BLP protection, etc) are slowly turning this project into a sad, unreliable joke. Also, when it comes to trolls and puppets there's enough Good Faith here to make Neville Chamberlain blush. I think the WP community is way too lenient when it comes to vandals, POV pushers, system gamers, puppets and trolls. That's their decision of course, fine, but it's a decision that I'm far from comfortable with and one that does this project a lot of harm. I feel I'm wasting my time reverting vandalism that can (and will) be restored the moment I turn my back. It's like hunting for burglars in the house of somebody who refuses to lock the door at night: an endless, pointless task. So thanks for your help and messages, and goodbye. Take care, Yintaɳ  23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear that, Yintan. I hope you come back someday to try to continue the good fight, but I'd totally understand if you didn't.
Regardless of what you do, I wish you the best in your endeavors. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One rule for you crats and another for the rest of us......

[edit]

So WP:EVULA is kept [27] and WP:PEDRO is deleted [28]. I for one blame IRC, the Mafia, Black Ops and WP:JIMBO....oh...... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that sucks. Had I known about it, I would have participated in the RfD... the argument about cross-namespace redirects is total BS. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really don't care but I guess we still need a guideline on them - a project for another day! BTW thanks for the email the other day - most kind and my apologies for not replying. Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the email; you getting it was the important part, not me getting a reply. :) Hope all is well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am completely and totally opposed to cross namespace redirects. It's about time someone put Pedro in his place....Keeper | 76 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*giggle* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, bureaucrats can't take away our adminship once they give it to us, so we could just tag-team to delete EVula's redirect. Since he's a crat, he would lose his rights before we would because crats are supposed to be even more exemplary in their conduct than us admins are. J.delanoygabsadds 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I could rename you and then oversight any evidence that you're actually an administrator, then tell a steward that I accidently give you the sysop flag and have you demoted. Mwuhaha! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O_O HOLY SHIT! I forgot you had that! I take it back!!!! J.delanoygabsadds 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute power corrupts rocks absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, on the other hand, I've blocked more than 9,500 people. Would take you a while to oversight all those block notices. Also, you'd likely crash the servers renaming someone with two hundred sixty-four thousand edits... Hmmm... I'm starting to like this "powah" thing... ;-) J.delanoygabsadds 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd better get started now then! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:O okay, okay. You win. :P J.delanoygabsadds 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon once told one of his generals that he would like to plant trees along the side of the road to shade his soldiers while they marched. When the general replied that it would take years for the trees to grow, Napoleon remarked "well, then, we must get started immediately then!" bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thus the great J.delanoy/EVula peace treaty was signed.
You know, if you're so keen on tag-teaming someone, Keeper is right there... just sayin'. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Y'know, it's always surprised me that Wikipedia's coverage of "tag team" seems to only refer to one sense of the word.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely crossed my mind. Even Wiktionary doesn't have any "alternative" definitions. A sad day for those of us that enjoy grossly inappropriate innuendoes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other kind of innuendos? Keeper | 76 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! What's wrong with those kind of tag teams? :D  iMatthew :  Chat  17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up again

[edit]

Not to throw another log on the fire, but the issue is being raised again at RfD. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch tagged it for deletion under G7, so I've obliged him.
I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's talk page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name (such as mine or Pedro's) shouldn't. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really am confused by this whole thing, as I'd thought that consensus was already that RfB discretionary range is 80-85%. I've seen nothing come from this discussion that I didn't already know. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings AfD

[edit]

Yes, go ahead and process it as a withdrawn nom. Thank you. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad people

[edit]

Your response to my comment at WT:RFA made me chuckle. Thanks for lightening up my afternoon. Shereth 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always count on me to make a smartass comment and lighten the mood. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/me mentions something about EVula's ass and "the mood". ;) لennavecia 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rawr. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kite (usurp)

[edit]

...has been renamed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I'm not going to do it just yet, as there are some pretty major thunderstorms moving in and I might need to turn everything off soon... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on to you

[edit]

Admit it, the true motivation behind your RfDA proposal was to acquire desysop rights to get rid of all the other admins and crats, thus becoming the Emperor of Wikipedia. I haven't yet figured out how you intend to silence the Stewards before your coup, though... Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I'm found out. Now to oversight this so nobody else sees it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an absurd accusation without a shred of proof, nobody will believe it. Hello my Emperor, when you have power absolute, please remember my meager services. Chillum 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw through it the moment he phrased one of the "concerns" with the RfDA system as "what if a bureaucrat goes rogue?" - that way it conveniently sidesteps the problem of him being a rogue bureaucrat already! ~ mazca talk 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought it was a nice segue into the last item on the page, which is, in my opinion, the most important item. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You completely neglected to mention WP:EVULA, especially where it applies in that last item. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

You've got e-mail! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet; been a busy day, and have only been able to do wiki stuff while on hold on the phone. Oy vey. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. ;D Icestorm815 • Talk 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping 2

[edit]

You've got another email. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one gets a quicker response because it's oversight related. Sorry, Icestorm. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

[edit]

Could you space the dashes in the lead, per MOS:DASH? Should be uncontroversial. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was really bugging me... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain; that's how I felt about the caption periods. There's still two left that I want to tweak, but one of them is more of a rewrite; given the furious editing happening, though, I'll just wait so I'm not contributing to the EC orgy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Art will tackle them, hopefully. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm holding off on any other edits until he gets done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bed? Sleep?

[edit]

I request you step down from bureaucratship and adminship immediately. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn, I can't find the meta page to do that because I'm so tired... oh well! EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget his oversight too, otherwise this conversation may suddenly have never happened. J.delanoygabsadds 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having oversight but not adminship would be hilarious. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The adminship part could come very easily :P J.delanoygabsadds 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's how 'cratship works. I'll rename your back if you'll promote mine... or something. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd still have a few adminsocks lying around, surely? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, what type of 'crat do you take me for? That was the whole reason I wanted the 'crat and oversight flags. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Pardon the interruption EVula, but I had a favor to ask. May I send you an email? I have no problem with you posting it once you read it, but some things are not adding up here for me. I'd hate to publicly embarrass myself by asking questions that I don't "need to know" the answers for. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a followup to your post at 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) NW (Talk) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the thread, but thanks for the talkback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

I recently sent you an email regarding oversight. Please check and reply, thanks;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email has been acting up on this computer (both in sending and receiving), so it'll have to wait until I'm back on my main machine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how long would that be?SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville meetup

[edit]

In planning. لennavecia 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother f... if it was just a week later, I'd be 100% there. However, Shakespeare in the Park runs thru September 7, and I'm house managing; the most I could do is hang out until about 4 (at the latest, most likely) before I'd need to haul ass over to Centennial Park.
Of course, the show could be part of the meetup (it'll be The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged), which is absolutely hilarious), but I certainly wouldn't be offended if nobody wanted that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much are tickets? I'll go. So, you'd be able to hang out for like, Sunday lunch? لennavecia 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couple more questions. What time is the show and do you know anything about this place: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g55229-d434828-Reviews-Jackson_s_Bar_and_Bistro-Nashville_Tennessee.html ? Thanks. لennavecia 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tickets are free. I'd be available during the day on both Saturday and Sunday (shows are at 7:30, pre-show starts at 6:30). I've never been to Jackson's, but there are tons of places around town; Blackstone and Bosco's both come to mind (and are both microbreweries), though the former is actually not too far from Centennial Park. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville. Updated. And sign it... I'm lonely over there. :( لennavecia 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done, plus I let Kaldari know about it (since he's the only other Nashvillian that I know of 'round here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained how you will be able to attend Saturday's dinner on my talk page. لennavecia 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EVula/Apr-Jun_2009&oldid=1166514428"