User talk:EVula/Oct-Dec 2006

user page // talk page

admin • opining • matrix • fun • awards

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 October 2006 and December 2006.

Hello.

Thanks for your appreciation on some of my contributions as well as inviting me to contribute to the MK project page. I thought I signed up not too long ago on its talk page, but maybe I should have done that on the main article's page. Buzda 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sure enough. I knew there had to be some specific reason why I thought you were already a member. :) EVula 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Captions

Thanks for fixing the Seigenthaler article. I forgot about that :) Kaldari 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. After all, that's what started this whole thing... Now we have come full circle. Whee! EVula 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

I had a little discussion with you a while back about the {{Film}} tag on character talk pages (the discussion was on Talk:Indiana Jones#WikiProject Films tag). Just so you know, we re-evaluated our scope and we now include film characters also. Thanks, Cbrown1023 19:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thanks for the update on this. Should I add the tag to the Mortal Kombat characters who appeared in the MK films? EVula 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as that is about a film or characters from a film, they can be tagged. Cbrown1023 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've tagged all appropriate MK character articles with the {{film}} tag. Glad to help out. EVula 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Please stop

The tags are getting removed if they relate to the article from the books, comics, etc... (anything outside the movies) It is is just that AWB does not distinguish between articles that had the tag and it was just removed and articles that never had the tag. I just finished those articles, so you will not have to worry about AWB reverting those changes. Cbrown1023 15:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Groovy. EVula 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of good came from this; a lot of those articles didn't have {{StarWarsProject}} on them, so I've been stalking your edits and adding it where it is missing. Thanks for the indirect help. ;) EVula 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Move vandalism

please fix the page move vandalism to Persian danceg -Zadsat 17:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Not sure why you came to me, but I'm happy to help. :-) EVula 17:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

came to you when i saw your name in recent changes.please fix other page move vandalism by unit since then also- Zadsat 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Feel free to let me know if you need any other assistance, or you can put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be with you post-haste.

I reverted the additional vandalism, though it is the sort of thing you can take care of just fine in the future. EVula 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

no man i mean unit moved other pages to nonsense names as well please fix them.- Zadsat 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Moves reverted. Thanks for the heads up. I've also warned Unit; if he does this again, he'll be banned. EVula 18:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

done it to your userpage...-Zadsat 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

your damn userpage was moved man! - Zadsat 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I give up

Thanks for ruining the Lion King pages. Go ahead it fuck it up some more. 24.14.120.92 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by both "ruining" and "fuck it up" you mean "bring it in-line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines", albeit in a highly creative and round-about manner. I'm further assuming that you're talking about some of my recent edits ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]).

Under those two assumptions, I'm curious about your overly-atagonistic response. *shrug* EVula 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Devastation

I noticed you're a pretty dedicated editor for this particular film article... you want to tag-team on this one, see what we can put together to make the article genuine? I cleaned up the structure a bit based on my experience with upcoming film articles, but we still need to develop the content, especially project history. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have about zilch experience with upcoming films; I gathered what little information I could largely in response to the deluge of crap that was being thrown into the article. Assistance from someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing is more than welcome. :) EVula 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Devastation

If I may quote you:

"I'd like to point out that, at one point, the article was actually fairly well sourced, and had links to older rumors that helped smooth the transition between conflicting information. However, Wesborland removed it [6]. If someone else would like to restore the information, feel free; he and I have gone back and forth enough times in this article that I don't want to revert him anymore, regardless of the quality. EVula 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)"

It wasn't my intention to vandalize the article when I removed those sources. I just thought they were no longer valid since they were outdated and contradicted by the newer ones. When I saw you didn't revert my edit I figured you agreed with me, but if you don't, please revert me. I'm really not trying to continue the edit war here, I'm just trying to make this article as reliable as possible.

By the way, have you seen the current state of the article? Someone removed the information about the plot and now it's in a certain state of disorganization, what do you think? Wesborland 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that I thought you were vandalizing. I disagreed with you, but coming right off our edit war, I didn't feel like disagreeing with you anymore. :)

I haven't actually paid the article much attention lately; I've shifted my attentions elsewhere. I'll probably swing back to it at some point. EVula 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your help with my template problems.I'm still a little new at templates. SOADLuver 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. The particular issue with your template is that almost all userboxes are being phased out of the template namespace; basically, if the userbox displays an opinion, it goes to userspace (as opposed to absolutely neutral templates, such as {{user en}}). Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read up on WP:GUS for more information about it.

If you have any other template questions, feel free to ask me. I may not be the most knowledgeable user in the world, but I'll do what I can to help. :-) EVula 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember this, and I'll read WP:GUS right away.again extreme thanks SOADLuver 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Re: userbox change

I wasn't talking about the placement of the names. I understand that, and didn't change it. I was talking about having two seperate links. One to Mortal Kombat, and one to the WikiProject. And thank-you very much for your civility on the matter. :) ^---SilentRAGE! 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I did change the words around. I just noticed that now. But it is supposed to be in that order, like you said. But still, I was refering to the two links, when I edited it. ^---SilentRAGE! 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Groovy, looks like we're on the same page now. Yay! :-) EVula 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Most welcomed. Note that what I stated there is mostly my personal opinion, with some thoughts about what others may consider correct or not. Thus, you may not agree in some points, or you may find later that in your future RFA that all my points are void. Hopefully, others will take their time to review you as well, although I doubt it as there is a big backlog and very few users working there. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 01:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was beginning to get a bit concerned; four days with no feedback, I figured maybe I'd been too verbose in my responses...

As for your advice, I've read up enough on various RfA standards to know that it'll be almost impossible for me to meet everything for everyone; personal opinions about what I should do are perfectly fine. Even if I don't pass an RfA, I figure that the worst that can happen is that I'll be a better editor. Oh darn. :-) EVula 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

---

EVula, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Hah! That's a great tag.

Anyway, no need to thank me for my support; it was your actions that made my support so, so easy to give. I look forward to working with you on other articles, too (maybe as co-admins; I'm hoping to run for a spot in a few months!). EVula 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. A review request

Hello EVula. In fact, I was already planning to collaborate with your editor's review either later tonight or tomorrow. I saw your funny comment yesterday following my baby remark on User talk:ChrisGriswold. I immediately recognized your username but could not recall from where. I firstly thought that it could be from a recent RfA, but only after spending some time searching for your non-existent RfA I realized that it was from the editors review page. So I decided that I should participate in your review anytime soon. I'll go have dinner now and I'll gladly provide you with some feedback when I return. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, I've got the world's best timing... thanks in advance. EVula 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your speedy delete stance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibrational Theory. However, there is no speedy deletion criterium that stipulates that original research should be speedied. I thought that I should tell you this because on your RfA there'll be a chance that users may get the notion that you are confused with the SD criteria. Best regards.--Húsönd 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... poop. Thanks for the heads up. EVula 01:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MP stubs

Thanks for your support. They're certainly not very good at present, but I'm hoping in the long term that we can have stubs for all MPs (well, from the Long Parliament on, say) and that people with the specialized local history to fill in the bios will do so as they can. (There are some frighteningly systematic people working on Parliamentary election results and so on.) Anyway, I mostly dropped by because your humorous example of the legislator-for-an-hour reminded me of a real incident involving two (relative) nonentities, Lord Charles and Rev. Lord Frederick Townshend, younger sons of the 1st Marquess Townshend. The former had just been elected MP for Great Yarmouth, and he and his elder brother (the rector of Stiffkey) took a coach together from Norfolk to London. At the end of the journey, Rev. Lord Frederick got out, hit a post boy, offered to fight the spectators, and wandered away. Inside the coach, Lord Charles had been shot through the head. Lord Frederick claimed his brother had committed suicide and that he had also attempted to do so, but failed; the coroner's jury failed to determine whom the shooter had been, and Lord Frederick was committed for a madman. Much more memorable, I daresay, than anything either could have done in law or religion. Choess 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...wow. I completely agree with you about it being memorable... that's just too funny. :-)

Hopefully the editor who is submitting the articles for deletion will wake up and realize that his little corner of the world isn't the only corner in the world. I'd help more, but there's very little I could do; aside from not being particularly interested in them, I'm on the wrong side of the pond. I'll just keep voting for their existence instead... EVula 05:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. TheSonofSerenity 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AFDs and "vanity"

Regarding AFDs, just a friendly note to point out that the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Cheers, Jpe|ob 08:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks! EVula 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

EVula, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. Also, thanks for keeping the tally up-to-date when others forgot and coming to my support on my one Neutral vote :-) I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and complimentary words on my RFA! --plange 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Like I said, I didn't know you weren't already an admin until your RfA; you'd always behaved like one, so I had absolutely no reservations about whether you were the sort of person who deserved a mop. Maybe now people will stop calling you a "he"...

The fact that you're a fellow browncoat is just icing on the cake. ;-) EVula 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing my AfD close mistake... By the way, how would I avoid that in the future? What is the correct template?--Isotope23 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I honestly have no clue what the template is; I just went back to an old AfD, ripped the bottom off, and put it on the page. :-) EVula 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was just doing that when you beat me to it...--Isotope23 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fast like ninja. Booya. EVula 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne (rapper)

Hmm, seems policy just recently changed. [7] I guess Jimbo removed that 48 hours thing about a week ago. I guess I didn't notice the change until you mentioned it. I guess it can be speedied, but it is on WP:CP so it will be deleted anyways. T REX_speak 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that actually makes me feel better. :-) I'm getting a lot more involved in the various XfD stuff, and so far my biggest/only stumbling blocks have been speedy deletion things. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading the policy. EVula 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator requirements

Thanks for the advice. :-) Nightscream 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to help. EVula 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm

[8] Once again, everything I did has been within wikipedia guidelines. What is illegitimate about me keeping an eye on your edits, as I have noticed that they contain a pattern of behavior with which I disagree and believe to not be in the best interest of wikipedia (eg discussing your personal experiences with video games on talk pages)? Thanks. HTH. Justinpwilsonadvocate 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No Wikipedia guideline was broken, which is why I didn't warn you. I merely requested that you not stalk my edits with the express purpose of opposing me, which (while not breaking any guidelines) is considered (by me) to be obnoxious and childish. It was a request, that is all, and you're welcome to ignore it (which apparently you will). EVula 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What was obnoxious and childish was your unwillingness to bury the hatchet when I attempted to end our conflcit last summer. Justinpwilsonadvocate 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking to me. Seriously, just stop. EVula 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

TestTemplatesNotice

Hi. I saw you putting the {{TestTemplatesNotice}} template in a few places, and I would think that it's value is questionable, and it also takes up a lot of room. I would think it would be better for it to show up only in Category:User warning templates, as that's the centralized place for all warning templates. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just going through {{TestTemplates}} and tagging everything there. Personally, I like the TestTemplatesNotice as I'm lazy and can just copy and past the code with the subst: already in place. :-) In all seriousness, though, I like having a standardized layout (for lack of a better term) for all the various warnings. A lot of new users who are just starting to use warnings against errant editors might not know to subst templates (I didn't when I was newb), so I think any service in that manner outweighs its size. EVula 03:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. But that ugly box is kind of ... uhm... ugly. I'd like it more at Category:User warning templates. But OK, I won't insist morre on that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly, there's very, very little reason for anyone to go to the category for instructions on how to properly use a template. If a better method is found, I'd be all for it; I'm not married to TestTemplatesNotice, its just the best option at the moment. EVula 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt

Thanks for your support re: Leia captured before or after Luke. I have no idea what this person is thinking! Urania3 12:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just strange. Maybe he has some bootleg or something. :-) EVula 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jedi trials

Hello! I think you are a good editor and i proposed you as a candidate for adminship. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EVula. Voice your opinion and let us know if you are willing to accept! Canderous Ordo 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

!

I just rolled out of bed from taking a nap (I hate being sick) and this is what I come to. Hot diggity damn, I feel better already! :-) EVula 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do I need to do? In poking around, I think that the page technically didn't get made "right" (can't be more specific than that, as I've never submitted an RfA, so I don't know the right way). Should I try to fix it, or should you? EVula 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Sure. It wouldn't go unnoticed by me anyway. :-) Good luck with it, I'll participate right away. By the way, I must recommend that you don't tell other users about it, for such action can be deemed as canvass by some editors. Your notice to me, however, is acceptable coz it's more like a friendly notice, as I participated in your editor review. Regards.--Húsönd 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I left messages with you and ReyBrujo, only because you two responded to my review. I'm not planning on canvassing anywhere else (though I am mentioning it on the MK WikiProject page, as its my rationale for temporarily backing out of/postponing something I proposed).

As always, thanks for the advice. EVula 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have asked an optional question on your RfA. I may well decide one way or another anyway but your answer would be great! (aeropagitica) 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question answered. I'm actually surprised that isn't one of the default questions... EVula 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: From Editor Review to RfA

Hello there, EVula. Unluckily, I don't participate in RFAs of people with whom I have not treated regularly. However, you have my moral support :-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Your advice in my editor review definitely helped me to improve my editing habits enough to warrant someone nominating me, so I figure you've already helped. ;-) EVula 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Need help

I am heavily involved with this project, but since it didn't have a tag until some days ago (as a matter of fact it was in a certain state of abandonment until I joined it) nobody quite knows it yet, so it has a grand total of 6 members and some of them aren't even involved with Uruguay-related pages. I really want this project to grow and I want there to be a wider variety of articles related to it on Wikipedia, but I need someone more experienced than me to help me achieve it, so:

• Would you happen to be interested in joining the project?
• Can you at least give me some tips on how to make it grow?

I'd appreciate your help. Wesborland 00:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best way to increase exposure for the project is to apply the project's banner to all relevant articles. To that end, I'm trying to hit up as many as possible. Aside from that... uh, I'm not really sure. I'm stretched pretty thin at the moment, so I think I'll have to pass on joining the project proper, but I'm more than happy to help flag all the articles. EVula 04:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are doing wikiproject tagging if you would like I have a bot that can do it Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually like doing it by hand, but a bot would probably get it done faster. I'd recommend talking to Wesborland directly, as he may have need of a bot's services in the near future. EVula 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see you have flagged plenty of articles so far, thank you so much for your help. As for the bot, I never quite understood how it worked and how it could be used, what exactly can a bot do? I'm sure I could use one but I just don't know how to. Wesborland 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your answer to Q4 on your RfA just earned you this barnstar. Mwahaha! Best regards. Húsönd 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

*bows* I love to make people laugh, especially on a page that's supposed to be rather serious. :-) EVula 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(and you'd better believe that I'm laughing maniacally now...)

Notice my latest friendly gesture

...I am sure it will be ignored like all the others. Justinpwilsonadvocate 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll get a thank you message for your support of my RfA, just like everyone else who responds. It won't be ignored. EVula 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you know that all I'm looking for in all of this is for you to say something like "OK, we're cool, thank you for your contributions to the wiki" instead of "stop bothering me". That's it. I don't know why that is so difficult about that, but I guess I don't understand a lot of things. Justinpwilsonadvocate 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick bit of advice: if you want someone to stop thinking that you're bothering them, actually stop bothering them. To this day, I have no clue what your problem with me is; apparently (given what little of your userpage isn't copied from mine), you feel severely maligned by the fact that I don't have you on my friends list, despite the fact that I told you specifically what you could do for me to consider putting you there and you didn't do what I said. I'm sorry, but if there's going to be some sort of reconciliation here, you're just gonna have to meet me half-way, dammit.

You've stalked my edits numerous times (and have fessed up to it twice)... hell, I actually don't have a problem with it, except that you've maliciously stalked my edits (which I've carefully documented in both my editor review and my RfA). With your vote on my RfA, I honestly thought for a second that maybe, just maybe, you'd actually decided to put our past behind us. But, lo and behold, you've come to my talk page, pointing at it (trust me, I saw it... I shit a brick when I saw it, but that's neither here nor there) and expecting some sort of cookie for it. Sorry, but that's just not how I roll; I'm not going to be manipulated into whatever reaction you're looking for.

Do you really want for us to be cool? I mean, seriously? 'cause here's what you should do:

1. Stop stalking me. I really don't like editing when I know for a fact that someone is looking over my shoulder, especially when they're going to second-guess my actions.
2. Stop abusing my talk page (you've edited my talk page more than any other; 29 of your 207 edits). Every time you post here, I have to stop what I'm doing to respond (and usually it isn't a quick response). This one response has taken me about two hours to write (although, in your defense, I was stopping to watch Daily Show and Colbert Report). When you monopolize as much of my time as you have, I'm not as effective an editor, which certainly doesn't implore me to be friends with you. The fact that you watch my talk page like a hawk and immediately respond, without apparently doing anything else on Wikipedia, doesn't speak particularly well of your intentions in my book.
3. Read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Not knowing the guidelines for obscure stuff like hatnotes is perfectly acceptable (hell, I didn't even know what the damn things were called for the longest time), but your moving of Borg (Star Trek), Ronto, and Sub-Zero (the last two being articles I had worked on fairly recently at the time of the move) without first taking into account the proper naming scheme of similar articles seems, assuming good faith, a bit haphazard.
4. Make more contributions to the encyclopedia that don't tie into my edits. You've created some articles, yeah, but all of them have been named similarly to items in my edit list (ERMAC vs. Ermac, Cyrax (HDS system) vs. Cyrax, the whole Ronto thing), plus several of your other edits have been adding hatnotes to articles that I help maintain (often right after I'd edited [9][10][11]). I count 12 pages in your edit history (out of 72 unique articles) that are unrelated to me or my editing patterns. I cast a wide net, I realize (about 4,100 unique articles edited), and am active in a wide variety of areas on Wikipedia, but it really isn't hard to not edit pages I haven't.
5. Don't make a show of trying to "win" my approval or friendship or whatever. As I said in one of our past conversations, friendship develops over time. The people who I've got on my current friend list I've known for a couple of years (with the exception of The Haunted Angel and RobWill80, who are on there because I've had several very positive collaborations with them, which I can't say about you [which isn't a jab at you or anything, its just a fact]). Go get more experienced with Wikipedia and I'll respect your contributions; respect is the cornerstone to any friendship. I'll be as civil as possible, but I'm not going to add you to my friend list out of guilt (or some misinterpreted wiki guideline). Some people may welcome absolutely everyone as their friend; I'm not one of those people.
6. Stop stalking me. Yes, I mentioned this twice; that's how important it is.
7. The seventh one is really, really minor: change your damn userpage so that it isn't a duplicate of mine. I know you didn't break any rules, which is why I haven't pursued this particular issue, but it just irks me, and it would be a tremendous show of good faith if you created a unique userpage instead of just grabbing my words and userboxes as your own (especially when most of them aren't even true; you aren't a member of those WikiProjects, and your userpage hasn't been vandalized at all, especially since you were the only editor to have ever touched your userpage at the time of its inclusion).

I don't want to sound like a hardass, but I'm just plain tired of dealing with this. If you're genuinely interested in becoming my friend and burying the hatchet, here's your map. Stick to it or not, its your call. EVula 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use questions

I have replied to your post on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 11:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god!

4 users joined the project in 1 day. Good job! Thank you. I'd give you a barnstar, but I haven't made one yet :P Wesborland 15:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fantastic news! I'm actually home from work sick today (I've felt like crap all week). If there are any more articles that need banners, I'll see about adding them. EVula 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A successful RfA (it seems almost definite: 50/0/0!) should raise your spirits! Cbrown1023 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Between practically ODing on orange juice and the overwhelming support on my RfA, I'm starting to feel better. :-) EVula 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pissed

Thanks for your response (yeah, the channel does that thing where you have to identify yourself with NickServ before you can /msg anyone). I've always considered "pissed" obscene (along the same level as "asshole"), which is why I couldn't understand why people would vote allow on that WP:RFC/NAME. In the United States pissed either means to be angry (in a vulgar sense) or to urinate (like you might have been holding it for quite a while), like one would say "where's the pisser" when looking for the restroom in a bar, etc. We also don't want children using that word, of course. Tuxide 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia not being censored. "FuckedPat" I would object to, but "PissedPat" just doesn't set off my alarm enough for me to vote "disallow" on it.

Also, any argument involving children (especially "we do/don't want..." ones) is instantly open to debate; while I wouldn't want my (non-existant) three year old to say it, I wouldn't have a problem with my (equally non-existant) fourteen year-old saying it, unless they were saying "man, Billy and I got so pissed last night", in which case I'd be worrying about a hell of a lot more than their vocabulary... EVula 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

~Tells on the mean bully in the Shaolin Monks edit war~

~Tugs on EVula's coat~

E.. EVula, he's doing it again! B-but I can't stop him, lest I break the wules. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, just reverted it. Now, go play on the jungle gym while Mr. EVula sits over in the corner and sips his flask... EVula 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yey! The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Award

On behalf of the Esperanza Barnstar Brigade, I hereby present user EVula the Barnstar Star Award for creating the fabulous Uruguay Star.Rosa 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a lot of fun with it... certainly gave me ideas for creating other country-specific barnstars.

Man, this is a good week for me... starts with a barnstar, will be continued with the almost-certain passing of my RfA... Wednesday, you've got a lot to live up to. Don't disappoint. EVula 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA result

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done on becoming an admin! Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about your admin status and tools, I'm sure that I would love to know the answers too! Best wishes and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally* The power, the power...

Seriously, though, I'm very excited about this. I think tonight is a perfect time to test out Vera to see what she and I can accomplish. :) I'll be sure to hit you up with any question, aero, though I'm likely to take it a bit slow (just to make sure I don't break something in my enthusiasm).

Now I can finally brag about this on one of the forums I'm active on without fear of them trying to flood the vote one way or the other. :-) EVula 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the mop EVula! :-) Have fun sweeping our beloved Wikipedia. Best regards.--Húsönd 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! From the looks of things, I'll be saying the same thing to you in just a few days. ;) EVula 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats as well, I'd have posted earlier but I'm currently dealing with a disruptive editor. Cbrown1023 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bwuhaha, I can't wait to crack down on silly vandals that I had to shuffle off to other editors for disposal... EVula 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Yay, another Browncoat is an Admin! Congratulations EVula!!! --plange 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Big damn admin, reporting for duty! :) EVula 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia, what have you done... Mindule 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Hey, congratulations. Hope you enjoy the new privs (not too much!) :) riana_dzasta 05:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking it really slow with jumping into being an admin (not the least of which being that my free time is almost nil this week...). I just deleted my first page (a page in my userspace I made specifically to delete) to ensure that I could get familiar with it and not screw something up. :) Next step is to thank everyone... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Better to take it slow than jump into extreme burnination... riana_dzasta 06:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's also partly because Thatched-roof cottage doesn't exist. Damn. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your new mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations EVula! I hope you have fun as admin, and if you ever need help, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, EVula, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also thank you for congratulating me, and for all the encouragement/support. :-) Kindest regards.--Húsönd 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Haiku

To express oneself
In seventeen syllables
Is very diffic -

(Radiant) 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no kidding. Why else do you think it took me so long to finally get around to thanking everyone for my RfA? ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the user box fix!

Yay! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tea with the Black Dragon

Hello EVula, the user that you see leaving the non-notable messages has left them on practically every page I have created and does so under different names. I doubt a page that is apart of a Wiki Novels project (if you refer to its discussion page) is considered non-notable. Just to let you know. I wanted to request if you find it alright for me to remove the tag because I highly doubt its notability is a problem.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems he struck on another article with the same name EVula: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Mehmet_Oz&diff=next&oldid=87478858 (does Dr. Mehmet Oz strike you as non-notable?).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Found another: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_School_Never_Ends&diff=87486182&oldid=87478291 (High School Never Ends is a song on a Bowling For Soup album, I'm pretty sure this user at this point is doing this for the sake of abusing the deletion tags).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Someone else already banned the one responsible for the tagging, but I did self-revert my edit to Tea with the Black Dragon. Let me know if you have any other problems. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks EVula, I greatly appreciate that. Well after looking at the history of all my articles seems he found his way to all of them:

• Fine Cut: KCET's Festival of Student Film
• Duarte Unified School District
• Tea With the Black Dragon
• High School Never Ends
• Il Ballo del Doge
• Henri Le Sidaner
• Dr. Mehmet Oz

Sheesh some people have major vendettas :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

High Sierra Disambiguation Page

May the glaciers shine reflected sunlight upon you in the cold, oh more gifted Wikipedia editor than I. Thank you, KP Botany 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah, no problem. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I remain confused. If I now create a High Sierra page by moving High Sierras to it, won't this overright the disambiguation page? I'm not always this hopeless but some of the instructions on Wikipedia are hard to understand. Thanks. KP Botany 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would actually recommend keeping it the way it is; this way, someone searching for "High Sierra", regardless of which High Sierra they're looking for, gets exactly what they need. Those looking for the mountains find it in a single click, those looking for the movie find it in a single click... moving the mountains to "High Sierra" and the rest to a "High Sierra (disambiguation)" adds an additional link that people have to use just to get to what they're looking for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

William Sledd

Do not protect the William Sledd page from being recreated. It was deleted because some...people disputed whether the subject was notable. William Sledd was interviewed by Women's Wear Daily on november 2, 2006, as a rising "youtube star". There's a whole article about him. Unless you believe WWD is on pay from Youtube, then he has finally been reviewed in major independent media and meets notability.--Arislan 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Deletion review. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this as I have personally read his article in the magazine.

db-userreq on userpages for User:Dan Asad

That is my old username. I wanted to delete those pages.--DANK 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

William_Sledd on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William_Sledd. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arislan (talk • contribs)

Sure thing, thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

...do me a favor. Contact me when the deletion review actually exists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin tools

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Thanks for the haiku. Congratulations and good luck as an admin! Andre (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a little thing...

Just thought I'd let you know, this anonymous user has made another edit to the Shao Kahn edit, after you warned him. I tossed another warning template on there, but I thought I'd let you know what he's up to still. Cheers, The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's such a minor thing that I don't feel comfortable banning him over, although I'll certainly watch him closely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:69.234.102.133

Thanks for de-vandalizing my user page. You think a block is called for? I'd go with a last warning but I'm not sure if i should do it myself. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'd say go for the block (24 hours sounds about right); there's absolutely no way in hell that it could be considered a good-faith edit. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Is there a record book for time between becoming an admin and becoming a vandal target? Although, I doubt I'd make it in the Top 100... ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but that is pretty damn impressive. The most flak I've gotten so far was someone letting me know they'd submitted a Deletion Review for something I'd axed. So mundane... nothing nearly as exotic as being called a dumb cunt. I'm almost envious... almost. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Freakazoid!

I suspect the semi-protect will have to be there for a long time; as long as the Candle Jack thing is a 4chan in-joke, the people there will try to carry it over here. Jay Maynard 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate to keep it protected, but I've got better things to do than clean up after morons. :-) Protection restored (thanks for the heads up, too). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think anyone vandalizing the Candle Jack entry to put the 4chan joke in should get an immediate {{blatantvandal}} warning. It's obviously not a helpful edit tot he encyclopedia, and cannot be made in good faith. Jay Maynard 13:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I'll start using that warning instead on future vandals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another MK AfD

Hi. Someone has created two more articles on alleged new MK titles. There are no sources, so I've put them up for deletion (here). Just thought you'd want to know. :) RobWill80 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeagley

Thanks. The thing is that some editors seem to have deleted, without comment, the original David A. Yeagley article in its entirety and substituted a new one, presumably to remove political controversies that surround Yeagley. I've just found this ount, and restored the text under a hidden tag. Badagnani 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, where'd you get that? I looked at the deleted version, and it didn't read like that. If you could, try to work that copy into the actual article (complete with wikiformatting) rather than just dumping it at the end; it looks quite odd as-is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image SD

I submitted the image for speedy deletion because it seemed to me to be an image that was rather unnecessary, however I see now ow it can be used, and please accept my formal apologies for this error. Scienceman123 talk 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. It was the sort of thing that you could have easily tagged it and then it was placed on Navel (I didn't bother checking), but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Apology accepted. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

look to the luna crap

i try'd looking for a source of its information, nothings coming up, so i'll just wait for this guy to say something, so until then it'll stay off. Lil'Layzie-One 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Lil'Layzie-One

Groovy, thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jubal Early

I removed your request for a citation - the citation is given. It's in Joss Whedon's commentary in the Firefly DVDs.

Now if you mean to say that Fillion's family, and thus Joss, might be WRONG, I think that's a different matter. It would be simple to rewrite it so that it was expressed as the Fillion family belief, and not as a fact.

Are they wrong? I suspect that any genealogists who are Nathan Fillion fans might be able to settle the question quickly. Zora 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Firefly DVD commentary" isn't an exact source; the exact episode (and chapter) has never been stated. At one point, the "Objects in Space" article said that it was in that episode's commentary; after watching it, I realized that it wasn't anywhere to be found.

I'm not pushing for a written source; I agree whole-heartedly that the DVD commentary isn't a perfectly valid source. Its the fact that it has never been anymore specific than "its in some episode" that I have a problem with. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firefly#Nathan Jubal Fillion Early for additional commentary about this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn. Well, there goes the weekend. Guess I have to watch all the commentaries all over again :) Zora 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (My score: recruited four Browncoats)

Sorry to hear that your weekend is ruined. My condolences. ;-P

My DVDs are currently loaned out to some prospective browncoats (the husband is totally hooked, having watched each episode multiple times + commentaries, whereas the wife has yet to see five minutes). I swear, if I can get a bit more paid down on my credit card, I might buy an extra set just for loaning out... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Could You Take Care of This Please...

Hello EVula, could you please take care of this speedy delete article. The username who created it also promotes the thing mentioned in the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Article deleted, user blocked for 48 hours. Quite apparent that they are only here to push that one article; if they keep it up, I'll block them indefinitely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yep quite the case. I have another one for you unfortunately, see this. Update: Jimfbleak took care of it, thanks again.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

username origin

Are you EVula as in EVula.com and the moderator in AmbrosiaSW forums? I have probably put as much time into that game series as I have into Wikipedia.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 12:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The one and only. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WHy are you vandalizing my page?

Please edit my user page when i give you permision! You don't have the persmission so please discuss it instead...

--Storkian 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things:

1. WP:USERPAGE user page does not belong to you (EVula could protect your user page and you could do nothing about it, but he's not a dick, so you wouldn't)
2. WP:AGF Assume good faith
3. meta:Don't be a dick

Thanks, Cbrown1023 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Storkian, you had {{user wikipedia/Administrator}} in your list of userboxes, but you aren't an administrator. Seems like all kinds of bad idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Executioner MK Minor Characters

i can see why you removed the resident evil stuff, that pretty much didn't belong there, but why did you remove the Mace: The Dark age stuff, to most people it does seem right, sence MK & Mace are both Midway made games, but i just want to know if theres another reason to other than its source. Lil'Layzie-One 14:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Lil'Layzie-One

Pretty much because its unsourced. I'm not particularly familiar with either character, so I can't verify that the two look similar at all; generally leaving stuff like that in place makes it a lightning rod for other speculation, so I tend to remove such comments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ok Fair enough, i guess i should remove the one from Mace then huh lol. Lil'Layzie-One 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Lil'Layzie-One

WP:UW

Hey, Glad to have you onboard, there are alot of people 'involved' in the project, but we are certainly looking for proactive people to get stuck in. If you look here and the overview page you'll start to get an idea of where we are. In the next couple of days I'll put together the 4 template models, and then we can start early next week. I'll assign a group of warnings to each of the people who have said they're interested in helping out. We, and this where you might come in handy, will need to put together a checking system to audit the new templates to make sure they meet the criteria setout before we put them into place. Also nice one with the user box, will certainly use that!!! Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharkface217 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Women in the United States Senate

You recently moved several articles about female U.S. Senators into the Category:United States Senators. However, that category should not contain articles about individual Senators. Rather, they should be in its subcategories, such as Category:United States Senators from Montana.—Markles 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was cleaning out a category that was tagged for speedy deletion (had been recreated after being deleted by CfD). Next time I clear out a category, I'll try to pay a bit more attention to the existing standards. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've just now looked at the CFD results and it seems strange to me that it would say that they should be moved into Cat:USSenators. It appears, then, that you were just following the CFD results, and it wasn't your fault. Thanks.—Markles 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Captions and comic book covers.

Re: "no periods" business

IIUC, ChrisGriswold is referring to an editorial guideline specific to the Comics Project, speciffically Uniform cover artwork crediting convention.

Just plopping in 2¢ — J Greb 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A handy guideline, to be sure, but as this is a photo, it is largely irrelevant. Useful reading, though; thanks for the link.

Also, what is IIUC? IIUC redirects to List of Internet slang phrases, but it isn't listed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I knew he was patrolling the Comics Project related articles withe this. I didn't realize it had gone beyond that scope.

As for "IIUC" it's "If I Understand Correctly" and it's related to "IIRC", "If I Recall Correctly. — J Greb 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the double clarification. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cookie (It's now in my awards section). But one problem: How am I supposed to eat it? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 22:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. It seems you are really involved in the MK Project. I am a fan and follower of the game, but I do not have much time to participate. Anyway, congratulations and go ahead! Greetings, --Gustave - May I help you? 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count

Gosh! Are you turning into a bot? Cbrown1023 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Query does not compute. echo $cover_story: Of course not! Why would you think that? Silly meatbag human person... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

Hi Evula, and thank you for trusting me as a fair reviewer. Well, I don't think that you were uncivil, but I do think that you might be getting a bit carried away in that discussion. Your anger and disbelief are quite evident in your counterarguments, perhaps you could state your positions without using expressions that denote sharp dissatisfaction (such as "what?"). Some editors do not appreciate a defense that is too staunch or too aggressive, and may even distance themselves from your position just because of the way your arguments are stated. My recommendation is to simply say things in the calmest, most reasonable way. Don't lose your temper. Once again, I don't think that you were uncivil. But you know, some editors are just too sensitive. :-) Good luck with that discussion. Best regards.--Húsönd 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll take your recommendations to heart. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Foo eats puppies"

Good to see I was chosen as the lab rat :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it just seemed to fit so well. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the first one

		The Uruguayan Barnstar
		Congratulations, you are the first person to get the Uruguayan Barnstar (which you created, lol). Thanks to you, the project is now fully working. You are always welcome to join it if you want. PS: I just noticed you are an admin now, it was about time! :D

Haha, thanks man. I'm glad that the project is up and rolling.

I won't just the project officially, but I'll add it to my ever-growing list of projects that I support but aren't actually active in; I've just got too much on my plate as it is, and I have absolutely no knowledge about Uruguay, so I'm not sure I'd be much good anyway. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD close

Thanks for doing the TfD close on Template: Free Speech: I should have done it myself, but I forgot (we're all human, after all!) Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Mailbox

Hi Evula, I tried emailing you but it got bounced back saying your mailbox was full so I figured I'd just leave a message here. Thanks for your thoughts on Wikipedia, they were very helpful. One last question I have for you is how you want to be referenced if I quote you in the article. I basically need to have at least a first name and/or username as well as a country of residence (or if you live in the United States, the state). Thanks. FFFearlesss 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just cleared out a bunch of crap (I'd deleted all the spam locally, but it was still on the server). Anyway, my first name is Eric, and I'm in Tennessee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicism

Not sure if you read the whole thing, but I've been following very closely. The socks of the user who created the article were vandals anyway. But, that was the most fun I've ever had in an afd. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit to not reading the entire thing; to be perfectly honest, I really didn't need to. Between the utterly pathetic photographic evidence (I mean come on, that was the most blatantly obvious Photoshop job that I've come across), the overwhelming "real editor" feedback calling for its deletion (and speedy deletion and snowballing), and the obvious sockpuppetry that was happening, there was just no way in hell that I could let it go on... though I will admit that it looked like hella fun. I especially liked when the puppeteer forgot which account he uploaded the file with. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that caning is out as a punishment for English secondary school students these days, but couldn't you lay some blocks on the perps and their sock accounts and IP's, just so they get the point? They've been making a habit of putting up joke articles (see AfD's for "Max cards" and "Fosh (game)") then disrupting and vandalizing AfD discussions. Tubezone 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One month bans for Mlc409 and Ichbinbored. The latter admitted to the image being fake (I tried not to shit a brick at such shocking news) [12], which removes any doubt that they were using Wikipedia for fraudulent purposes. I'll leave it to others to deal with the other puppets. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, Mlc409's sock Gordon39 nominated himself as an admin, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409. That didn't last long... Tubezone 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I saw that (I think that's how I made my way to the AfD, actually). Funny stuff. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tags

Hi, I have a question I was hoping you could answer as an admin. If I shouldn't be asking this here I apologise. Having read WP:NPOV and related pages through again, I see that it is expected that use of the {{POV}} tag is accompanied by a reasonably full explanation on the talk page of the article. I was wondering is there any concensus that such tags can be removed if no explanation is given (or it is only a very basic ie. "I disagree" comment is made without citing problem areas and explaining the discrepancy)? There is a huge backlog of tags which undermine articles. Many seem to just be added when someone reads the topic which does not support their own POV on the subject. Thanks. WJBscribe 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no apparent rationale (don't forget to check the article's history; the reason may have been included in the edit summary instead of the talk page), I'd double-check to make sure you aren't missing anything, remove the tag, and make a note on the talk page about how you couldn't find any POV in the article.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense and good point about checking the edit history as well. Thanks a lot. WJBscribe 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cite news

I think you broke it. If you use this code here I am 99.9% certain it will work perfectly. — coelacan talk — 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to "cite news", as it resulted in broken syntax appearing in the very many articles which use it. An example of an article which broke with the change is 2006 Fijian coup d'état attempt. Please reapply your change only when you've thoroughly tested it.-gadfium 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I thought I'd checked it a bit better. Sorry... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to have another go? You can try out that template by using {{User:Coelacan/citenews}} ... actually let me just do an example right here

• User:Coelacan/citenews

I think that's right. It's the same thing I added to "cite press release" and I really just copied it from "cite book". — coelacan talk — 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit made. So far, so good... I checked a few articles, including the one gadfium pointed out, and saw no evidence of borkage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I just tried it out and used the new parameter on an article, and I think it's working right. =) Thanks for your time and assistance! — coelacan talk — 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I was finally able to not break the template. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

William Sledd

William has been featured in a number of news articles. Please can you unprotect the page, I think it is time. Thanks. FrummerThanThou 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the sources handy? It would be best if I restored the article as it was before deletion (including all contributions and edits), and then you could tack on those sources. I'll restore it when you respond. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi EVula, below are some articles from media bodies about him. The three below are the only online pages I could source right now since the Google newsbot runs by a very complicated algorithm, one of the factors it takes into account when excluding pages is the clickrate (ups, i need to create that one, later). Anyways, there have also been a number of articles in the press, which I will try to source later, hopefully the below is enough. Please restore the original text, it was based on my renetto article as is fine. I would also like the opportunity to collaborate with you on an open discussion on a wikipedia policy page on modifying the guidelines about notability as far as YouTube and other prominent social networking sites is concerned. I think sites like YouTube are media bodies in themselves. FrummerThanThou 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• [[13]]
• [[14]]
• [[15]]
• [[16]]

He is currently the 7th most subscribed memeber on YouTube (23480 subscrbrs). His videos have been viewed nealy 3 million times. FrummerThanThou 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I'll take care of this later tonight when I get home.

As for working towards revising the notability guidelines, I'll have to decline; I'm not particularly interested in that particular facet, and only got roped into the William Sledd issue because I happened to delete the article. Just luck of the draw, I suppose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

looking forward to see it back up so I can work on it. FrummerThanThou 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry about that; I completely forgot about it. Restoring now... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page, EVula. :-) Strange a registered user vandalize my page as their first contribution, I suspect it might be a user I blocked yesterday. Thanks once again. Best regards.--Húsönd 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Two minutes from first edit to permanent ban; that was fun. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

article to look at...

the article i've created that was deleted twice was AC/DC's song Little Lover. i've recreated it just in case it deleted again. i've added some notability on the article to keep it from deleted. anyways, go ahead and check why the article was deleted. take care! Jailbreaker22 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was deleted because it isn't a particularly notable song. Generally, individual songs don't get articles unless they've charted (or are notable in some other way). Personally, I would have replaced it with a redirect to the album rather than deleted it, but that's just me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The White Rose Society (student group) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The White Rose Society (student group). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deeply Saddened...

I'm deeply saddened by the indefinite banning of user:timecop, but more so I'm troubled by your obvious racial profiling in this incident. I have nothing else to say, in fear of further abuse of power due to your personal biases towards people of color. Skrewler 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There was community consensus behind the band; if you think it was racial profiling, you're severely mistaken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please could you point me to the discussion on this user's ban? Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussion about User:Timecop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, frabjous day!

Thank you for banning the trolls! :D You make this place better for everyone! I wouldn't want Wikipe-tan to cry. You wouldn't want the personification of Wikipedia to cry, would you? Jecowa 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your user page was just vandalised. Jecowa 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. What little bit of guilt I may have felt dissipates with every bit of vandalism, though I'm getting a kick out of the various titles being bestowed upon me: racist, cunt, king of knee-jerk responses... good times. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikidians can racially profile people. Everyone looks the same on Wikipedia. Was timecop really gay and black? I thought he was just everything on his user page was just there to get a rise out of people. He seemed to be trying to offend people as much as possible while trying not to cross the line. Like with his World Trade Center user box for offending Americans and his dog eating box for offending Koreans. I doubt that he would be Korean and black. It looks like he was seeing how far he could go without getting banned. I think his war on blogs and the attention it recieved with the publicity of the Tony Pierce case is what got him nominated for banning. Jecowa 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the crux of what irked me enough to ban him. Gaming the system and specifically trying to see how much you can piss people off without getting punished for it runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, and can easily be considered disruption. We're better off without editors whose primary interest is in pissing people off. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Knee-Jerk

A crown for you! O Hail the "King of Knee-Jerk Respones"!

That was a knee-jerker! (more of a slapper, but w/e) Here you go. Cbrown1023 04:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell yes. Now I feel like royalty. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lughead

That video is hilarious. He sounded like he was getting emotional over that Wikipedia article. Maybe that's why he had to edit part of it out. Jecowa 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised. Heaven forbid that I uphold Wikipedia policy. How rouge of me. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Message

I have just ended the fight with Haunted Angel with my last post. I will not carry out a usless rant. BadtoGood 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks dude for the warning to BadtoGood, it was getting a bit ridiculous. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was this close (I'm holding my fingers really close together) to banning him outright. I'm pretty sure its the same stupid shit that's been harassing you all this time.

I don't get it. I've made controversial bans and deletions, and haven't gotten nearly as flamed as you have. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}}

Thanks for the speedy fix! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Recurring fatalities on Unchained

Hi! Just wanna asked something about the classment of recurring fatalities. I asked it on talk page, but I couldn't get an answer. Deception fatalities (and Deadly Alliance fatalities of Jax, Frost and Kitana) appears on Unchained too, so are they considered as recurring? Thanks. Master Spider 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd say yes, if only because the fatality system ends abruptly with Armageddon (damn you Midway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I'm writing Deception fatalities as recurring to the articles (as well as the DA ones of Frost and Jax). Master Spider 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

About insults

About your collection of insults (they're quite funny). But, you last one makes it appear that being called Jewish is an insult. You may want to consider revising it. Just so you know, this is totally good faith and I'm just making sure that you don't get in trouble or thought of the wrong way. Thanks, Cbrown1023 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, maybe I'll put a bit of a qualifier on that... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :) I know you didn't mean it that way, but sometimes you need to put things like that. Like on the back of a nut package when it says "Warning: This product contains nuts." Cbrown1023 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your amusing comment over on WP:AN under Administrator ethics. It made me laugh unless of course it's true... Whispering 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that! :) Cbrown1023 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*bow* That actually came in a bout of severe silliness; I think I was up past my bedtime at that point... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out at WikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Temp block of 75.41.208.17

It appears User:Ravnatel is restoring the links by 75.41.208.17, who you recently blocked for spamming. --Ronz 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're on top of it. Thanks! --Ronz 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The name you gave was actually wrong (it has a j at the end), which caused me to see no edits at first, which was very confusing. :) User banned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your time! 192.75.48.150 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

You know, the problem is, all this is just too much work, and it detracts so much from Wikipedia. Thank you for offering to look into my complaints in an unbiased manner. I will still consider it, as I am watching this administrator more closely now, but still trying to get him to do right by using the talk pages of articles and stop reverting. KP Botany 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be a pain, but if a person is dampening the enthusiasm of other editors, their behavior needs to be corrected. I'll still be here when you get fed up. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but it's hitting the fan right now.[17] I've really had enough of Wikipedia. I can't believe that this systematic abuse of editors whose POV you disagree with is allowed to such a high degree on Wikipedia. It's shameful, imo, especially to the many good editors and the good that has been done on Wikipedia. KP Botany 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's earned himself a tasty 48 hour block, but you yourself just got a 24 hour one. Arg...

Here's a really good way to make sure that you don't get slapped with any "personal attack" claims; provide diffs for each and every single complaint that you levy against a user (and if you don't have a diff, don't say anything). For example, check out my RfA; specifically, question 3, detailing my disagreements with editors. For Justinpwilsonadvocate alone, who has been a particular thorn in my side, I've got twelve different diffs to back up what I'm stating. Yes, gathering all those was exceedingly difficult and time consuming, but it also allowed me quite a bit of freedom in what I could say, as it was very clearly backed up and couldn't be disputed. That's partly why I was suggesting you gather up as many links as possible as evidence, as proper diffs can mean the difference between a legitimate complaint and a borderline personal attack. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia's policies

Hi there. I started an article about the Warcraft movie, citing blizzard.com's official announcement as a reference. However, someone wants to delete the article based on WP:CRYSTAL or something like that. If that's the case, shouln't Mortal Kombat: Devastation be deleted too according to the rules? Anyway, I need your help to keep this article from being deleted cause I'm not familiarized with Wikipedia's policies. Merry Xmas! --Wesborland 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the difference between Devastation and WarCraft is that the former has at least had a script written (possibly), while the latter has not. Given Blizzard's size, I think it would be fair that this movie will move forward, but I can understand the concern. (cross-posted at Talk:Warcraft (film)) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

An editor has expressed to me in email their displeasure at your reverting of their edit.[18]

I understand that indefinitely blocked editors have their editing privileges revoked, and have absolutely no problem with that. But in looking over the removed copy (note: with no knowledge of whether this is part of another situation), it seems to be a moderately worthwhile addition to the article.

*shrug* I'm not sure what proper protocol is in this situation, but I thought I'd at least drop you a line, if for no other reason than to get both sides of the story. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the username of that editor? (→Netscott) 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The "from" field says "Open stakes". EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Open stakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of User:Mactabbed aka User:Maior. This user has been defiantly puppeteering to circumvent his ban from Wikipedia. I have taken a proactive stance to revert all of this user's sockpuppet edits to encourage this user to leave the project. These sockpuppet accounts are just sleeper accounts. Please see that the banned status of this user was re-confirmed recently. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mactabbed to gain a better understanding of who we're working with. I would invite you to indef. block this latest sockpuppet however if you are not so inclined please let me know and I'll inform other admins who are more familiar with this puppeteer's disruptive ways. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense (I've seen your edits enough to know you're not psychotic). I'll have to bow out of banning him myself, though, as I frankly don't have the energy to get myself in the middle of another shitstorm (already done that a few times, thankyouverymuch), so I'll leave it to admins who are more familiar to deal with the problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott has no excuse to revert good-faith edits, as he is disrupting wikipedia to try to make a point, an irrelevant point. Open stakes 00:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Banning editors aside, an edit should be judged for its own sake. Open stakes' edit of The Fall of the House of Usher, and The Beguiled (save for one paragraph) were worthwhile (I was unable to judge whether that was also the case with Fallout (computer game)). Caracterising them as "vandalism" shows poor judgement —in those few cases only. Urhixidur 01:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

His edits on The Beguiled (being the only ones I've read over) appear to be improving the article. There's no reason to constantly revert his improvements to that page. On a related note, people do change over time... if he wants to help improve wikipedia, why stop him? Jet082 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft (film)

Yup, you're right. That was my mistake. I forgot to check for that. — TKD::Talk 05:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm only a hawk on it because I've been burned by it, too. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is *not* a recreation of the AfDed article

This wasn't originally deleted because of its syntax, it was deleted (twice) because of its content. {{db-repost}} applies, and if someone wants to bring it back they're going to have to go through WP:DRV first. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer to the G4 criteria:

A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process... (emphasis mine)

It quite frankly isn't similar to the old version at all [19], which means it fails G4. Half of the references used in the article didn't even exist when the AfD was run, which clearly establishes that there have, indeed, been developments in regards to the film. There's no reason to send it through DRV because I've already shown that the original criteria for its deletion was incorrect (and the deleting administrator has agreed). Sending it through DRV is useless, as it would be undeleted and possibly sent through AfD.

If you want the article gone, it has to pass through the AfD process again; there are no speedy deletion criteria that the article meets. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Could you please explain why you put {{db-author}} on Go God Go XII? [20] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is too out of control and I want to start it over from scratch. I started it in the first place. --Ineffable3000 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you started the page is irrelevant; too many other editors have added to it for {{db-author}} to be usable (actually read the tag to spot all the ways it is incorrect for this situation). Go about starting from scratch by creating the article in your userspace, then copy your local version into the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia issues

Hi. I object to the speedy closure of Serbophobia DRV, as it lasted mere 4 hours, and I (and anyone else who knew the background) didn't have a chance to comment. Calton, who seems to be the only aware of the issue, came too late. The "incident" was announced and endorsed here.

While I understand your reasons for the DRV closure (and my deletion summary at the time was bad, the reasons being given primarily in the AN/I thread above), and admittedly an out-of-process deletion for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, it wouldn't have cost too much to leave it open for at least 24 hours, or check "what links here" and/or the article text.

Please don't take this as an... um... rant; from the pure process wonk viewpoint, the deletion was incorrect and thus undeletion might be correct. But, the speedy closure of DRV, from the same process wonk viewpoint, was also uncalled for (may I mildly hint to a bit of lack of WP:AGF for the fellow administrator who IAR-ed the said article?). The sole intention was to get rid of petty little ethnic feud articles, enumerating every chance of evil deeds of them against us. Oh well, guess I'll follow the process this time. Just, please, try to see if there's a bigger picture in the future. Cheers, Duja► 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, (and this is without reading the link; I'm about to head off to work, but want to at least address this so I don't forget) I agree that the four-hour DRV is unusual (which I agree is shame on me), but "Delete crap" is about the most useless summary for the deletion of an article I've seen, and suggests absolutely no grounding in policy (with that in mind, IAR seemed like it was tacked onto a personal opinion). I was in a particularly bold mood last night, though I'll probably give a bit more time before closing DR in the future... maybe I'll let them get into the double digits next time. ;-)

So, to sum up; while I may have been wrong to close it so soon, I think it was wrong for it to have been snuffed out the way it was without any sort of notice. Since DR is, primarily, a review of whether the process has been followed correctly, I felt good about restoring it, as it was apparently a gross abuse of the deletion system (which several other editors agreed, and even called for its speedy restoration). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, AfD-ed now. I was in a particularly bold mood too at the time of deletion; however, there was "a sort of notice" (and then some) though (tho' admittedly not in the deletion summary). When one gets two bolds on opposite sides, what remains between?

(pun intended). Duja► 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, we've got boldness coming out of the wazoo. I'll be happy to participate in the AfD (though I'm staying the hell away from closing it), once I've actually read up on everything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it again, 'k? One major point of DRV is to draw a line what admins can get away with in their interpretation of policy, and if that itself is done out of process DRV loses much of its credibility. There was no imminient reason to restore the article right away and in all likelihood the consensus would have stood after five days, except in that case with the weight of a procedural decision behind it. ~ trialsanderrors 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, it won't happen again; while I usually like for process to work its mojo (the article's deletion, from what I could tell, was a violation of that, and in turn I violated it myself), but I especially don't like getting jumped for stuff I've done... it is even worse when the people jumping me have a very valid point. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

How can I activate an auto-heading for Template:Drmspeedy? Regards Must^TC 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know; I never use default headings, so I have no experience with them (outside of knowing they exist). Check WP:WARN; I'm sure some of those have the proper syntax (not the Test1-Test5 templates, though; those I'm familiar with). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Freestyleking46

This guy is always defaming the pages of John Tui and Jason David Frank. I was wondering instead of just giving him a few hours' block if you could just block him indefinitely, as it appears most of the time he "edits" a page it is because he desires to vandalizes it. I am not really familiar with the blocking policy, but since this guy is always vandalizing these pages when his block is up, I just figured if it was possible. I know such a move will make him create a sock puppet perhaps, but at least he may be less inclined to vandalize. Daijinryuu 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at his edits, and he certainly seems to be a habitual violater. As a result, he's now blocked indefinitely. I didn't block him from creating a new account, though, in the hopes that he'll clean up his act. You seem to be moderately familiar with him; if you see similar editing from a new user, let me know and I'll block the sock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think there will be more than one of us on that, too, I think. I'm seeing various people leaving comments about removing the dude's vandalisms. If he does go elsewhere, he'll be caught most assuredly I think. Yet, in the mean time, can we semiprotect the pages about John Tui and Jason David Frank so this guy can't vandalize from an IP or a newly created name? Daijinryuu 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not exactly the most subtle vandal I've ever seen. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet, in the mean time, can we semiprotect the pages about John Tui and Jason David Frank so this guy can't vandalize from an IP or a newly created name? Daijinryuu 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather hold off on semi-protecting the pages until they've actually been vandalized more; I always prefer to take care of the problem editor, which protects numerous articles, rather than lock down just the articles themselves (which can have possibly negative repercussions for uninvolved editors who just happen to be new). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)