User talk:EVula/Jul-Sept 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 July 2009 and September 2009.

Shameless questionspam[edit]

It recently occurred to me to get the local timezones of various administrators that I've dealt with and know I can work with in the future, and to concentrate that information in one page instead of my memory. Because the relevant page is linked from my userpage, anyone will be able to find a list of the most useful admins. It so happens that you're the latest victim. If you feel like revealing your timezone (not exactly the most dangerous secret in the world), you can reply here, here or here (the latter by actually adding yourself to the table). If you object, simply reply here or here (be sure to specify if you're objecting to the concept itself, or just the timezone). Because this is shameless questionspam, thanks in advance for whatever option you choose. —LedgendGamer 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just discovered that WP:HAU exists. —LedgendGamer 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...okay! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fug[edit]

What was this about? WP:HOTTIE can have a See also section but this one can't? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies outside of article space. If you look at the history of WP:HOTTIE, you'll see that there was, at one point, a list of people that aren't hotties, but they were removed. It was also a complaint on the RfD page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed fairly clear-cut to me, yeah - having a page on a widely-read encyclopedia saying certain well-known people are hot is perhaps a little unprofessional but largely harmless; having a page on the same encyclopedia stating that certain well known people are effectively 'fucking ugly' is another thing entirely. ~ mazca talk 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure calling someone "ugly" or even "fucking ugly" is tantamount to such actual BLP vio content added to Bio articles such as "so and so murdered so and so"[citation needed]. Calling someone ugly just simply isn't a BLP vio, especially when sourced by, well, their own face. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allstar, I like your work here but given your recent issues I'd recommend you ease off on this. EVula's edit was totally correct. Your understanding of libel seems about as good as your previous understanding of copyright - i.e. weak to non-existent. Let it go please.Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the smiley face and the "source by own face" joke.. calm down. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro seems perfectly calm. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Pedro is perfectly calm. Allstar, if you start describing people as "ugly" on a public website you are subject to libel laws (possibly slander due to some week interpretations of "spoken" in many areas but it ammounts to a similar outcome) - trust me you really are. Smileys may be all good and well but they are in the middle of this conversation which is peripheral to the main issue so irrelevant. The simple fact is you have libeled those people. EVula removed it. Just let it drop and move on - and please think a bit more before posting stuff like that on WP. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further review this is an unatributed rip-off from WP:HOTTIE - efectively another copy-vio as it does not follow the GFDL realese the original words were created under. Please DB-U1 - now. You really need to wise up on GFDL and copyvio Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at when it was created. It's not new. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really do not understand this do you? Replied on your talk Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, whining about the "no-fun brigade" is pretty immature. I fail to see how it's the collective fault of the administrators that you don't understand the difference between WP:HOTTIE and WP:FUGLY (and their respective "see also" lists). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks[edit]

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Hi EVula. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've arrived as an admin![edit]

I just noticed I received my first post-block angry personal threat [1]! It makes me feel so important :D ~ mazca talk 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so proud of you! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not involved, but I was browsing on this page before leaving a message (which is oddly enough just idiosyncratic for me), and I decided to read that. I found it quite hilarious that not only is he advertising an illegal, crude game clone but he actually had the nerve to flame a respected member of the community. It's people like that who make Wikipedia a cesspit, but luckily, it's the editors and admins who level the playing field. The New Squeaky (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freakazoid![edit]

Hi! I noticed you used to semi-protect the Freakazoid! article a few years ago. Do you think you could do it again? It's still getting Candlejack-vandalism. --Zarel (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've asked for this previously at RFPP, and it always gets declined, and it always gets vandalized again, and it's always the same stupid vandalism. Sigh... — Gavia immer (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:D Thanks. I've asked for this at RFPP before, and it was semi-protected for about a week before it went back to its regular vandalism. I really didn't want to go and deal with the templates again for another RFPP, so I figured asking an admin who was previously involved in the page and knew what I was talking about would be easier. --Zarel (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

My personal favourite edit summary of the day: [2] and it's been a long day, so thank you! :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it was a good one - I think DMacks ended up beating you with his followup "resolved" statement though, haha. ~ mazca talk 09:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was so inspired, I put a new quote on my userpage. [3] :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Nice. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

for the heads-up. — Dan | talk 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For working my user name change, I'm glad to be the original now. -SpacemanSpiff { Calvin Hobbes 01:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, happy to help. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for changing my username all these countless times that I've gotten tired of it! I'm glad to know that there's someone efficient and responsible behind the desk when I put in the request! The New Squeaky (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the kind words. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:EVULA listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:EVULA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:EVULA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BlueSquadronRaven 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I was actually informed this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect.[edit]

I have been thinking the discussion over about the closure the other day and came to a small conclusion that if you (me) vote oppose then it is my duty to support my position as the supports were said to be counted if they were only a signature, so...I was just having a little look and feel as to how to do this, it is not easy to question a vote, to do it is almost like starting from a position of bad faith. Anyway, just some thought and comments, there is another one just further up, support 219 User:PrincessofLlyr newbie since may 2009 113 edits never voted on wikipedia before and jumps up and votes for JC for crat. I also would like to point that vote out as well> what do you think? I comment here and ask you only for a little advice. And find it hard that votes like these which are in all good faith weak are automatically counted and votes from the oppose section are discounted from perhaps long term experienced users because they haven't expressed themselves well. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So say so on the RfA. {{spa}} is the perfect template for tagging true single purpose accounts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's not that I think that they are a spa, just that they are very new to the site and the workings of the authoritative posts here. I would say this is relative to the value of the vote. What would you say? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Someone that is new can make a more compelling argument than someone who has been here for years. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can agree with that. Thanks for commenting. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OTRS Ticket[edit]

Hey EVula, sent you an email about an OTRS ticket. Let me know if you get it or not. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firing off a response now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA reminder[edit]

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:EVula (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pzrmd[edit]

Pzrmd claimed here that he has emailed you with information about his previous username. Without revealing the name itself or any identifying details, can you confirm that a) he has in fact done so, and b) the previous account was in good standing? (no recent blocks or pattern of disruption). → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your issue, Mr. Officious. Pzrmd2 (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this your only warning to refrain from personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you're quite sad, I have to say =). Pzrmd (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you somehow think that clearing the warning off your talkpage means you can't get blocked? → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Pzrmd (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then refactor the above attacks. → ROUX ₪ 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, knock it the hell off. Roux, calling you officious was hardly a personal attack, but Pzrmd, you could have simply (and very accurately) pointed out that it wasn't his issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone abusing RTV/fresh start is everyone's business. → ROUX ₪ 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your faith in my ability to understand that. I'm blown away, really. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be insulting. You said "...accurately) pointed out that it wasn't his issue." I disagreed and said why. It wasn't an attack on you. → ROUX ₪ 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was accurate because you didn't need to insert yourself into the situation; if it was an abuse of RTV, I would take care of it. (as it is, I still haven't gotten a chance to read the email yet) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

Check your email, thanks Pzrmd2 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out for the evening, but I'll take a look at it when I get up tomorrow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but[edit]

there is absolutely nothing offensive about "Supreme Allah" to any religion. Allah means God, nothing else.

Many people have Allah: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Allah&group=&limit=50

And many people have God: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=God&group=&limit=50

Please reconsider. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, many of the people on both your lists are blocked, presumably for the same reason... ;) The offensive part isn't using the term "Supreme Allah" by itself, but rather using it to refer to a particular user. --Zarel (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of users on both lists are not blocked. There is nothing offensive about it and since many others have the word "Allah" and "God", I should also be allowed to have it specially since no other have the name I have requested.
For example, here we have "God Emperor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:God_Emperor --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but "God" is a slightly more neutral term... It can refer to any deity, even one in a pantheon. It could even mean "extremely powerful", as in "godlike". In any case, it's probably better for me to let EVula reply... --Zarel (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what "Allah" means, but I have concerns that it would end up being offensive to someone; they would interpret your username to suggest that you yourself are the Supreme Allah. The fact that the other usernames exist does not dissuade me from my concerns (especially given that several of those usernames have either been blocked or have never been used). Simply pick another username please. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVula, I beg you, please, I have thought about it for a long time, this is a name I really want to have. The fact that many others have been permitted usernames with both "Allah" and "God" shows that you should let me have this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to change my mind; I really do believe it to be a bad idea. Furthermore, fellow 'crat Kingturtle and CHU clerk Juliancolton both agree with me (see WP:CHU#Supreme Deliciousness → Supreme Allah) that this would be a Bad Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to approving Supreme Deliciousness's name change to Supreme Allah. This would be grossly offensive and tantamount to blasphemy! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see [4]. The name change was denied at CHU, but user has adjusted his/her signature code so that it reflects the denied name. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's changed it back. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at UKER's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Responded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

namechanges[edit]

[5] shows what might be a problem with folks following a user around. Collect (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the user has stated they don't plan on editing again, I don't think it's much of a problem. If nothing else, there's not a whole lot I can do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least it shows the real problem, I fear. Collect (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration[edit]

I noticed you were having trouble with your drama abstinance.[1] I thought a little motivation might help:

Cheers! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not too much, I just can't stay in the article namespace (the point of the dramaout) that much; I'm simply not a heavy-duty content contributor. I'll wikignome the hell out of an article, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided it would do me good to combine avoiding drama with experiencing Wikipedia as an unregistered user... I've made about 300 gnomey edits as various IP addresses this week. This includes receiving two vandalism warnings at various times for entirely innocent edits! Not having my watchlist available does wonders for keeping me away from the drama boards. ~ mazca talk 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've got a non-admin sock that I edit from when I feel like looking at everything thru new eyes. It's a worthwhile experience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't do that. The sweet siren call of anonymity would make it too tempting to vandalize the pages of users I don't like.[2] I recommend heavy use of the "random article" function for wikignoming. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success![edit]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source question[edit]

I've been contacted by the unit historian for 4th Supply Battalion, who has given me some information and an image to use for that article. However, it's not published anywhere but in the unit's records, which are not generally accessable to anyone not at the unit's headquarters. Would I be able to forward the email to OTRS and cite the ticket as a source? Or perhaps simply just cite "unit historian"? It would be a shame to be unable to use this history. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be better off asking someone else; I'd hardly consider myself to be experienced with OTRS sourcing. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a second (unrelated) question for ya. Since you seem to know much more code than I do, maybe you can help me with my signature. I want to shorten it up a tad, and one of my goals is to have the subscript and superscript in the same vertical alignment (i.e., one above the other). I know it's possible, because Template:PhysicsParticle does it somehow for the nuclide templates, but the code is too complex for me to decipher it. Do you think you could help? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... yeah, looking at the template, that's pretty crazy complex. Looking at the HTML output, though, to try to mimic the code in a sig would be impossible, as the output would be too long for the sig field (you could get away with using a user subpage subst:ing, but the resulting output would still be crazy long for a signature).
I took a look at your sig's code; I was able to do a bit of tag consolidation, but managed something similar to what you were looking for. Went from 320 characters to 312.
Original
bahamut0013wordsdeeds
'''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#918151;color:#000;">bahamut0013</span>]]'''[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sup><small>words</small></sup></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sub><small>deeds</small></sub></span>]]
Revised
bahamut0013wordsdeeds
'''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#918151;color:#000">bahamut0013</span>]]'''<span style="background:#D2B48C"><small>[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<sup style="color:#000;margin-left:3px">words</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-20px">deeds</sub>]]</small></span>
Pretty happy that I was able to add in more code and still reduce the character count. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:D you=The ManTM! Mucho gracias, senor! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

email[edit]

Check your email. Pzrmd (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also emailed you. Prodego talk 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions[edit]

I was wondering if you had seen my response to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Image_captions_can_be_too_wide —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but didn't have anything spectacular to say. Good job with the overflow bit of code, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shark GAR notice[edit]

Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editnotice help[edit]

Can you do me another favor? I might be out of my mind, but I think the editnotice installed on List of notable United States Marines isn't right: I can see it when not editing the page, and twice when I am editing the page. I'm not sure what's causing me to see this behavior. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone transcluded the editnotice directly onto the page. Silly someone.[6] EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh... I didn't get it either. See, I'd also thought you had to transclude it for it to work. Silly me. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, they work automagically. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHU[edit]

Good luck with The Shrew - one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. I love the BBC version with a typically manic John Cleese as Petruchio (sp?)

When you have a mo, could you return to Wikipedia:Changing_username#FjBot_.E2.86.92_KtBot? I can't quite remember the circumstances. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up.
The production is being done in a 60s/70s style. Petruchio's wedding "outfit" is spectacular... I wish the Nashville meetup could see it, but alas, it closes next weekend. C'est la vie. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilvert CHU[edit]

Hey EVula - what can you tell me about this, if anything? Doing my best to get the backlog reduced a little! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How to" question?[edit]

Hi EVula. How do I archive my talk page? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different ways. Help:Archiving a talk page has everything you need. Personally, I prefer the cut-and-paste method; nobody needs to have (or likely cares about) my archived pages on their watchlists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatboy Slim -> Norman Cook[edit]

Hi. You reverted my merge of Fatboy Slim to Norman Cook, leaving the comment "wrong way to do this". Can I ask you why you think it was wrong? I followed procedures described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Text_dump_merger

And in case you're wondering, the reason I did a merge and not a move is because there was already a Norman Cook article (although it was just a redirect to Fatboy Slim). Scientivore (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct solution here is to move Fatboy Slim to Norman Cook, not to simply copy and paste; when you do that, the history is destroyed. Do not undo the revert again; I'm more than willing to do the move (as an administrator, I can automatically delete the existing redirect in the move), but I'd like to see some consensus before doing so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Meetup and Shakespeare (abridged)[edit]

Perhaps we should have a designated meetup place near Centennial so we can all roll into the amphitheatre and play MST3K! Btw, are tickets just "at the door", or can they be reserved ahead of time? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jackson's is the venue of choice for Sunday; it's not terribly far from Centennial Park, and food is always good. :) As for tickets, it's open seating; first come, first served, so there aren't any reservations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERM request[edit]

Just read through your /fun page .. and I have a "permission" I'd like you to grant to me. I would like to be able to reach through the screen, and smack a few folks about the cranial area for a bit. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "vigorous cranium smack" tool would certainly be a more useful and educational anti-vandal tool compared to "block". I'd like this permission too please! ~ mazca talk 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville[edit]

Don't forget to have your bathrobe presentable. Lara 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to work hard enough to make myself presentable; now I have to have a clean bathrobe too? Sheesh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have one of the ladies in your harem get it ready. ;) Lara 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Har har har :P — Huntster (t @ c) 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preview fail. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Awesome. Some serious pleasure reading, that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. :) I had a blast rewriting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

green links[edit]

Thank you for joining the discussion about the orange and green links proposal. I have started a more modest proposal. Any comments would be greatly appreciated there. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, though I still don't think this should be anything other than a gadget. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Confirmation (en)[edit]

Hi, I confirm the name change request (crengo--> cryngo). Thanks, Cryngo (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wanting you to confirm it on the Italian project, not here, but since you've got a unified account, that works too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians that are teh shit[edit]

Hi EVula, are you really "teh shit"? X! seems to think so, but I'm not convinced? Am I missing something? If so, I really don't know what. Could you shed some light on this? Thanks.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  318° 59' 30" NET   21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you aren't sure about an inside joke, perhaps you should assume good faith and not revert it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm, by conversations that I've had with him, that EVula is indeed "teh shit". Javért ☆ 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to assume bad faith, especially against an editor of X!'s stature, it bears a burden of guilt. I was just a little puzzled due to my lack of inside knowledge.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  166° 3' 0" NET   11:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was meant to be part of the fun, nothing serious!   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  216° 19' 45" NET   14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not upset, I'm just saying that reverting isn't the first course of action if you don't get an inside joke. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I may have let my vandalism reverting get the better of me! Thanks. I guess you really are always right! :D   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  257° 16' 30" NET   17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no foul, especially since you now know the error of your ways. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Nashville thanks[edit]

It was good times hanging out with you, dude. How's your Pornopedia improvement drive going? XD You did indeed polish off like 8 slices of pizza, as promised. I'm sorry your Shakespeare show got shit-canned, I was looking forward to it. I was expecting it to eventually go on, since the rain had stopped at the hotel, but Nashville weather is apparently notoriously incongruous. Either way, you're a cool dude and it was nice to spend some time shooting the shit in person with some Righteous Wiki-Brothers in Arms. Keep on rockin' in the free world and hop into IRC once in awhile, ya? Bullzeye contribs 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the drive to set up a Pornopedia ArbCom eventually died off once I realized that I had plenty of other things to do. ;)
Totally had fun at the meetup. I do wish you guys could have seen it, but yeah, Nashville weather is really messed up. Now that the show's done, I should have a bit more time to pop into IRC (although certain parties already assume I'm there 24/7 anyway, but who the hell cares about them?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're "Chanserv" on IRC right? Dude, you're always there! Psh. Don't deny it. Lara 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly...[edit]

I've been watching too much Buffy/Angel, "Wiki-sire". --Smashvilletalk 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd be plowing thru that if I weren't busy trying to get caught up on Dollhouse first... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dollhouse is all that's left in my Whedon-superfecta. --Smashvilletalk 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty fantastic. There are also more than a few repeat Whedonite actors; the most obvious is Eliza Dushku, but Amy Acker has a somewhat major recurring role, while Mark Sheppard has a minor recurring character and Alan Tudyk has a fantastic cameo (I couldn't stop laughing at his character for the first three-quarters of the episode). The actor playing the much-discussed Alpha is also a Whedon regular, but I don't want to spoil it (even though I knew who he was well before he was shown on screen). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had me at Amy Acker. --Smashvilletalk 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spoiler-free comment: her character, like many others, isn't what she appears to be at first. If you haven't caught up on the show by the time I actually come to Beer Church sometime (I know everyone in it, but haven't actually ever gone), I reserve to smack some sense into you. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of WP:BEERCHURCHCABAL, I believe I have adequately pumped up certain BSG neophytes about their impending viewing of 33. --Smashvilletalk 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The next step is for me to hop on over and get her my DVDs... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles Rock Band instrument photos[edit]

Any luck on getting these or still enjoying the game too much to take time off to get them? :-) --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little of column A, a little of column B... actually, as much as I'd love to take some pictures of them, because of my recent move, I have no idea where my camera is. :( I could try taking a picture with my iPhone, but I doubt the quality would be that great... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie, I'll post another request and see what happens first. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL[edit]

Did you read that about Ecoleetage and Pastor Theo? xD Pastor PirateSmackK (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose Responsible This image[edit]

The image that was previously used was taken from the source of the meme, Toplessrobot. It's one of the first pictures, and has been featured as an example on other sites reporting the meme. Also, the new image is of a much lower quality. Would you have a problem with me restoring the old image? I had forgotten to remove the "some website" tag, as the website and author is now cleared up. Friginator (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've uploaded another, similar image that's of a higher quality, and is entirely my own work. I'm going to add that one to the article instead. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er... so what was wrong with the one I uploaded? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

I was hoping you could look for the ticket regarding File:AMEX Opening Aug-2-2004.jpg, the same image was previously deleted for OTRS issues. The uploader is one of several SPAs that have been trying to edit the article Steve Brozak and put him in the best possible light. I'm not 100% convinced that good faith can be assumed any longer. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... sorry, I've been largely ignoring enwiki in favor of en.wikiquote, where I've had a couple of different things brewing. Do you still need me to look into this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I was actually gonna get worried if I didn't hear from you soon. I see that a template was added to the image by Panyd... I'm not sure if the OTRS volunteer knew about the previous version's deletion or not, or if that's an issue or not. I'm also not really sure where to go with the SPA and possibly COI issues either. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it out after lunch. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your status with WP:VG[edit]

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions by DuncanHill[edit]

Please see [7]. Can you please respond, in the thread at my talk page, and also please leave a note for DuncanHill (talk · contribs) about his recent actions? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What kind of note? I see an admin using his tools to protect a page in his preferred form, and I see a failure of another admin to discuss (BRD ring any bells?), what is interesting is that once I started to try to discuss, Cirt chose to respond by protecting the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted a reply on Cirt's talk page; I can shift the venue to wherever, it makes very little difference to me, but I'm amazed that tagging an indefinitely blocked editor as such is in any way, shape, or form a contentious issue. DH, I just don't see why you're so gung-ho to edit war over this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WH has been the target of a sustained and vicious campaign to remove him from WP, including malicious and false accusations of posting child pornography. I think that the rush to blank his userpage smells distinctly fishy in this context. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) If I may attempt to elucidate DH's position - typically whenever a long-time contributor is indefinitely blocked; and it's the kind of indefinite block that we hope to be able to lift (i.e. after their assertion that they will modify their behaviour and avoid repeating whatever it was that lead to the block), it is uncommon to immediately replace their userpage with these templates. It kind of gives the impression that we don't want them to make an attempt to come back via the unblock template. –xenotalk 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the beauty of only seeing WH's responses of "fuck off" to nearly everyone and everything involved in this. Without any context, it seriously just seems like a troll being taken out, rather than a long-time contributor. If I've got the situation wrong, I'm more than happy to revisit my position, but it doesn't change the fact that the initial revert was only justified by claiming that Cirt was gloating in placing the template, which I think is a grossly inaccurate assertion. (overzealous in his application of a template? perhaps. but the edit summary certainly assumed some massively bad faith) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looked to me like gloating, in the context of the sustained attacks on WH. I am happy to accept your assertion that it was not gloating. Given the history of attacks on WH's userpage, and Xeno's comments above, I believe that the template was precipitously placed, and that it is not necessary at the current time. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, without the context of knowing any history of attacks directed at WH, the whole thing looked like a troll that was getting his comeuppance. Again, his response to being told he'd been blocked was to say "fuck off" to everyone, the ANI thread has everyone pretty much agreed that WebHamster was grossly out of line (both in creating a BLP-vio page and in edit warring in regards to it, plus abusing Twinkle by reverting non-vandalism as vandalism), and numerous editors supported the block. His block log has numerous blocks in it for 3RR and civility violations; as a result, I felt no remorse in tagging the user's talk page.
              As for WP:BRD, since you brought it up Duncan, let's talk about it. The exact path of events: Cirt tags the userpage, DuncanHill reverts, EVula restores the tag (reverting the revert) asserting that it's a valid use of the template, Cirt updates the ANI diff [largely inconsequential, I think we can both agree], DuncanHill reverts again, Daedalus969 restores the tag (reverting the revert), Cirt fully-protects. Where do you feel the the "D" in BRD should have come into play? I can see multiple places where discussion could have occurred instead of a revert. Should I have discussed it with you before reverting? Quite possibly; however, you had an extremely bad-faithed edit summary justifying your edit, which is why I reverted with an edit summary that I felt gave a neutral rationale for the template's use. Should you have discussed it with me before reverting the tag a second time? Yes, in my opinion (though I certainly wouldn't blame you for disagreeing).
              I'm sorry to say this, DuncanHill, but you've got some serious AGF issues in regards to WebHamster. He's got a history of being attacked? Okay, I'm willing to believe that. However, I've seen you ask (in a rather accusatory fashion) Cirt and Daedalus969 if they've tried to get WH blocked in the past,[8] called Cirt's perhaps over-zealous templating gloating,[9] claim that Cirt is in a dispute without much basis,[10] (at most, Cirt supported the block; that's not the same as being in a dispute) accused Cirt of reverting to the wrong version of a page[11][12] (neverminding the fact that you're pushing your version of the page too), claiming that I've failed to adhere to BRD,[13][14] (which I feel I've addressed above, and am willing to own up to in part) and have even called the entire thing fishy[15] (which is just a massive blanket insult on everyone involved, in my opinion). I'm not sure what your involvement here is; perhaps WH is a friend, and you're defending him. That's commendable, but accusatory comments left and right aren't productive for anyone involved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldmn't describe WH as a friend, just as someone who has been publically attacked, and libelled, many times on Wiki. Most of these attacks have focuissed on his userpage, and have included admins protecting the page in theri own preferred versions. Anyway, you have made your position clear. Good day. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ EVula giving up?!?!
  2. ^ Just kidding. I stay away from articles that draw edit wars, so all of the people I don't like are bloacked anyway.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EVula/Jul-Sept_2009&oldid=1166355673"