User talk:EVula/Jan-Mar 2009

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 January 2009 and March 2009.

You made me bust a seam

LOL Happy New Year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I try, I try. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor EVula :)

EVula, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#EVula and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 03:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

poke poke

Sent you an email a few days ago, just a note to confirm you got it OK? No worries if you're just busy and haven't got to it yet. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It came in, but yeah, been too busy to check. I've got the day off from work today, though, so I'm hoping to take care of the two wiki-related emails I haven't gotten to. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no rush. Just wanted to check, as I've had a few emails disappear into the internet-vortex recently. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear EVula,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU

What are the technical difficulties that you're referring to? Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

SUL/global contribs aren't working for several days now, so we can't fully check a rename request. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably could have used a bit more explanation; I just added a link back to the BN thread to the three notice boxes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW

Just wanted to let you know I replied on my talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Commons image icon

I replied to your post (sorry it was a bit delayed) Anxietycello (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, replying. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

I am temporarily logged in to ask you something if you would post your answer on my own talk page. When I left the project and posted my notices of leaving Wikipedia on my user page, and my Retired notice on my talk page, I lost my welcome notice posted by another user that was there as a new user account. Would it trouble you to place a new welcome page on my talk page? If you do I may come out of retirement. Thank you. I am considering returning from retirement. I find working on this project helps me cope with my troubles and forget for awhile, pursuing editing of academic articles. I hope one day to make administrator privilege. AdirondackMan (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, don't know why you would need one, but your request is reasonable enough.  Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Enigma RFA

Still protected. :) rootology (C)(T) 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you only said it should be reopened, not that it should be unprotected... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68

W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Data Crystal

Me and my mate were wondering if there is any way of taking over (becoming a bureaucrat) on this wiki: Data crystal , we are asking you because it has been inactive for a long time, and we were hoping to try and take over to help fix it up. I have tried asking people on this wiki but no one is ever on besides me, the only other contributions are random IP addresses that spam the articles (even more then they already are). If you could please reply on my talk page it would be highly appreciated, thanks (This message has been sent to most bureaucrat's). --MỸŠŦЄЯỸЊӘҒҒ (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

additional poking

Just checking what the situation is with respect to that email I sent you a week or two ago - you mentioned you'd get a chance to respond last weekend but I never heard back and the talk page thread just got archived. Let me know what the situation is - if you don't want to go ahead, by all means just say; I'm just kinda left hanging here. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just made of suck when it comes to responding to emails. After laundry and lunch. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy EVula's Day!

EVula has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as EVula's day! For being a user of good sense, good temper, and good humor, enjoy being the Star of the day, EVula! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kickass, thanks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

'crat bias! :P GlassCobra 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What was that? You want to be renamed to "EVula's Bitch"? Well, I dunno if that's such a good idea, but hey, who am I to argue... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind

I think I've decided what I'm going to do. --barneca (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* Sorry I never got around to responding; ask mazca, he'd been waiting for me to email him back even longer... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he just responded to an email I sent him in 1924. Get in line. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak template

Ohai EVula, I have a question. You had a wikibreak template on your userpage for when you were in the play Born Yesterday. Could you do me a favor and fix me a copy of it saying that I'm playing Lefou in Beauty and the Beast? Many thanks :) Sam ^Blab 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you want it on the top of your userpage, or just change User:Shapiros10/Wikibreak 2? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Top please. :) Sam ^Blab 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I used this version of my header, but stripped out the rehearsal info (since I have no clue what your schedule is like). Break a leg! EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Good to see you again

Thanks. Actually, I'm probably going to be back on a more permanent basis — nothing like the good 'ol days, but something in between. — Deckiller 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! More is better than less, and we can always use people that know what the hell they're doing. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Enigmaman 2

I was just entering my opposition as you were closing the vote...that might indicate the direction it seems to be going...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not regarding any opinion expressed after I placed it on hold. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good close. Not a good close for WP, a good close in reading the will of the community. Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Came here to thank you for have the courage to close this one... it was one of those RfA's that might upset some, but I think it was a no win situation for all involved.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, well-written. Not sure how I would've closed it. –xeno (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Spot on close, and great respect to you for doing it, and for taking the time to explain your reasoning carefully. Geometry guy 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  "carefully" here being defined as "it took me thirty friggin' minutes to write what I'd been thinking up all damn weekend". :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, honest, and well-thought out close, man. Good job. I saw the edit when you first put it on hold and saw how long it took you to post it; must've been a bitch to copy-edit ;-) - Thanks for taking the time to do all that. Much appreciated. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the kind words on the closing statement; I definitely feel like that was the hardest close I've had to make so far in my seven-month bureaucrat career. I'm also glad that nobody's knocking down my door, ripping me a new one about how I closed it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well now that you mention it...is it closed or is it as you said...on hold? Modernist (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note the top of the RfA. When you first edited it, it said "on hold". Now it says that it did not succeed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice close; I enjoyed reading your analysis. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. An excellent summary of a difficult issue. Euryalus (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

EVula, You have my full support in your did not succeed decision in this RfA. I commend you especially on your fine closing statement. You were fair and eloquent. You are a fine attribute to Wikipedia. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good job EVula. Your impartiality is commendable. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

“However, as the IPs were made by the candidate [...], they are perfectly valid reasons for editors to oppose the candidate, and the will of the community in regards to those edits cannot be dismissed.” Very good call, EVula. This is one of the best decisions (and also one of the best closing statements) I have ever seen/read from a bureaucrat. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-reasoned summary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brit

Thanks for catching Brit again - thought he'd have given up by now! ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, though I was rather shocked to realize that it's already been two years since he was banned. Wow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#WP:AAAD

Hm. It's not dying but it's not getting much response either. Thoughts? Should I tweak? (Watchlisting.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs)

Eh, I think the discussion has run its course. AADD isn't really that big of a deal (it's just an essay that documents common practice), and the topic seems to be proposing an addition to the essay, which isn't really the most discussion-generating type of post out there. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

help me unblock please

sorry im new to the whole wikipedia thing so im sorry if im making mistakes. i was blocked for "spamming" with my friend. i wanted to clarify that i made my account at the same time as my friend: stephaniehong .. we are not the same person. we didn't know we were spamming by adding links. sorry! we thought it was adding to the site! Skoh25 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to do more than just add links to tv.com, I'm willing to unblock. Deal? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I will do more than just add links. Thanks!!!!! Skoh25 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit stats

With wannabe kate gone, where do we get those these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Well, I got those from wannabekate. Not perfect, but better than nothing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A more important question, where the heck did the bot go that posted them? Majorly talk 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I liked your AGF essay

Hi EVula I wondered how you would suggest handling User:Bobsagetwarrior, especially in the context of what you wrote in your essay about the N word? WereSpielChequers 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that the editor hasn't made a single edit outside of an initial burst on December 1st, I don't think it's worth doing anything about... that's what I originally had written before I looked at the edits in question. It's obviously a vandalism-only account, and pretty stupid that it didn't get blocked at the time of the edits. Page deleted and editor indefinitely blocked; given the edits, they're likely a sleeper account.

Anyway, the original context of my essay had more to do with vandalism; seeing "nigger" in an edit (I've seen many such edits to Darth Vader) is one of those things that makes me reach for the block button, rather than placing a mere warning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it wasn't so much that the essay was relevant to the particular case, more that I thought that the person who wrote it would know what to do in this case. :) thanks WereSpielChequers 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lay the smack down on obvious vandals? Yes, I'm always happy to do that. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You scared me

Your edit summary got me worried that I'd offended you, until I read your write-up on NSA. Happy editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted it to have some punch. Sorry for the heart attack. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please page protect Ecoleetage Talk Page

Thanks for deleting my account. I would ask if you could please page protect my Talk Page, too. (The artist formerly known as Eco). 75.145.253.254 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Log into your account and make the request; I can't verify that you are, indeed, Eco. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can run a CU to verify the IP, if you want. I cannot log in anymore since I've had someone scramble my password for me -- I have no desire to restart. I just came back to look something up, wanted to see if the page was deleted, and say the usual drama miasma on my talk page. Off-Wiki...yeah, that's the right queue. Thanks. 75.145.253.254 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll protect it. Tan | 39 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the page per G8. I think it is clear (to me) from Eco's request when he requested his main page to be deleted that he was thinking both should be deleted. I'm taking that as a desire to vanish. I'm sorry to see him go, but have to admit that my fears of his RfA turning ugly were part of the reason I drug my feet.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected; we don't lock user talk pages except in cases of vandalism, and especially not when unconfirmed IPs request the protection. GlassCobra 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed the IP, but events have taken things over, and I have left the indefblock template on his page. SirFozzie (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

block

I am sorry about my actions this morning, I was and still am very frustrated about the whole Ecoleetage situation. I am ready to be civil and talk about it in a relaxed civil manner, it will never happen again. I will ride out my block by posting under different IP's until it is removed. I will never be a troll or a vandal they were just stupid threats I made I really have better things to do in my life than become a Wikipedia abuser. Wikipedia has help me to become a better person in real life and I am thankful of that.intraining ^{Jack In} 19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.251.34 (talk)

You need to ask Tan, not me; he's the one that blocked you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to except my punishment, I am truly sorry for what I said to you on Eco's talk page. I was very annoyed at the time.--219.90.251.34 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed that

It must have been super fast - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a very... fluid... situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fluid is as good a word as any. I would have suggested pissy, but fluid is good enough. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2009

A new subpage will be needed. It may be better to move it out of my userspace (might be a reason people are scared of editing it lol). Majorly talk 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. Stupid new year...
I'd be fine with it being moved to my userspace if you don't want it in yours. Dunno if it needs to be in the project space or not, though. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being willing to handle this so quickly! They say its the thought that counts :D Good day and happy editing! John Sloan (view / chat) 00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some final words on Eco

Hello EVula. Unsurprisingly, the most neutral and adequate participation in this novel was yours. And therefore it shall be to you that I shall provide my final statements on Eco's RfA and the diff-demands that caused so much trouble in the past two days.

When I added my oppose to Eco's RfA I had no intention of adding any diffs. The task would not be easy and I basically just wanted to voice my own concerns, something that I believe is a right everyone has on an RfA. Users do not oppose friends, support foes, so unless the intention is to deliberately disparage the process, any reason a user provides on an RfA for justifying his or her decision is valid, if not for WP:AGF. We are to presume that a user has used his or her best judgment upon making any claim. If one requires proof, go fetch. Providing proof is voluntary action, not a requirement. I could've simply said Oppose Eco as per considerable lack of trust on candidate due to own experience with him and nobody would've complained, so I cannot comprehend this thirst and demand for diffs simply because I was more elaborate and harsh. So the user was a saint with a hundred merry supporters and I was the beast. No big deal, that should not limit my right to expose my personal view of the candidate without having to be harassed. I am saying this because I am hoping that if this kind of situation happens in the future to someone else, it might be a good idea if a bureaucrat drops by and requests witch-hunters to calm down. Many have left Wikipedia already for this kind of unfairness, so putting a timely halt to future undue witch-hunts could well be a lesson and a benefit to take from this story.

When users started to require diffs, I decided to abide by their demand. I explained that it would take time and I would be available for that this Saturday. I expected people to back off for a while but the drama continued to grow out of control. The bashing became so aggressive and uncivil that I decided that I would only bother digging for diffs if the weather here kept rainy during the weekend and I got nothing better to do then.

It is now useless to provide the so eagerly expected diffs. Everything I accused Eco to be has now been proved, although this could've been just a fortunate coincidence. Seriously now, I no longer can provide the diffs as I had planned to, if I were to. For them to look like evidence, I intended to make first some questions to Eco on his RfA, much like SDJ did. Questions could include:

• if Eco had been stalking me repeatedly;
• if Eco had cursed his previous RfA's opposers off-wiki, only to set out to make them change their minds with mass insincere apologies;
• if Eco had shown contempt by the job carried on by several administrators, some of which were later charmed and were now happily and ironically supporting his new RfA;
• if Eco had suddenly stopped all of his constant off-wiki criticism to me, then suddenly becoming friendly to me, deeply apologizing for the previous stalking and undue criticism; this only to attack me with all of that very same criticism during my RfB, as if he had never acknowledged to me off-wiki that he was wrong and sorry;

These questions I would accompany with diffs showing Eco's stalkings, charm operations, and sudden change of behavior when an eventual RfA foe is detected. If Eco answered to the questions positively, my oppose would be justified. If he denied, I intended to ask him for permission to forward some of his e-mails to any user interested in verifying if he was telling the truth, much like SDJ did. A denial or no response would probably allow some conclusions to be drawn.

Luckily SDJ had similar experiences with Eco and was far more efficient than me in revealing his true colors. But we could've come to the same outcome with a lot less drama and damage.

The end. Regards, Húsönd 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly understand why there was so much furor. You didn't just say that you'd have negative past experiences with him, but cited specific items; I think you're right in that if you'd just said you didn't trust him, nobody would have even batted an eye. Now, that said, I did have faith that you would gather the diffs, and while initially I felt you should still do so, I think your explanation about why you won't bother now makes perfect sense... plus, it really is a moot point (not only would no good come from it, but holy shit did he do a fantastic job of validating your comments). Any good will that he may have built up among people has since disappeared with this rather dramatic about-face (one which only a handful of people saw coming, yourself included, myself not).

Honestly, I'm just glad that you hadn't actually jumped off the deep end, and instead knew what the hell you were talking about. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had never really wanted to believe that you had gone off the rails, Husond. I thought your commented - unsupported as it was - was unsat and beneath you. I felt that if you are going to toss around those sorts of claims, you had best be able to defend them at the same time. I found it extremely disappointing that you instead chose to argue about and play the part of victim (which ill-suits you). I was expecting you to say, 'okay, I'll dig them up and supply them within 48 or 72 hours.' I kept waiting, and Ecol self-destructing doesn't invalidate the responsibility you had to mind your own P's and Q's. Stated another way, had this sort of comment been offered at an RfA for someone else by someone else, you yourself would be up in arms about it, and rightly so. Calling Bush a jackass is one thing; tossing a shoe at the schmuck is quite another, and I would presume for you to be aware of the difference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CRGreathouse

I see you closed this as passed. It was less than the recommended 80%. In fact, it was 73% support, the rest opposed or neutral. I am not protesting the decision. I supported the candidate. I am alerting you that being nice, being lenient, and looking to help Wikipedia is the primary goal. There is too much nastiness in WP, some committed by admins who don't edit much but create trouble. This person was not a troublemaker and will probably be a good admin. Chergles (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Chergles, in your belief that 80% is "recommended" and that RFA's are closed by the number. Firstly, the general bureaucrat discretionary range is 70-75% which as you note this was within. Secondly an analysis of opposers and neutrals indicates a number that were not overly concerned where the candidate promoted. Thirdly, there were some particualrly strong supports. This close is correct, and is not even close to some of the more dubious closes that have been made histroically (not by EVula I would add) Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a more personal spin on the (accurate) general outline that Pedro provided, I consider the entire Neutral section to be most important when conveying constructive feedback to the candidate. It really only comes into play for me as a bureaucrat when the RfA is particularly close; this one wasn't, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could not agree more EVula. The current "close" RFA (Itsmejudith) nees a solid reading of neutral as at least one comment in there is actually an oppose. This demonstrates both the value of the neutral section and why it is ignored at peril. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not protesting the decision (noted originally) but to highlight that courtesy and encyclopedia improvement should be the primary goals. Rather than be nasty to the candidate, it was nice to promote him. I am accused of "being mistaken" but the original message is completely accurate, I believe. Chergles (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can see this RfA was at 80% support. In general, support percentage is calculated without including neutrals, as otherwise mathematically a neutral is equivalent to an oppose vote. 77 supports out of 96 total support & oppose votes makes 80.3%, this RfA wasn't even really in the 'close' zone unless some particularly compelling oppose arguments had been made. ~ mazca ^t|c 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In a fair world, there are two ways to count Neutrals: not at all or 50/50 like a tie in hockey. This makes 77/19/9 as 77/96=80.2% or 81.5/105=77.6%. If neutrals were counted as opposes, then it's 77/105 which is 73.3%, still within historical 'crat discretion. I say "historical" 'crat discretion because the theoretical 'crat discretion is 0-100% - if no crat promotes someone with 100%, he doesn't get the bit until the mutiny succeeds, if a crat promotes with 0%, he'll get the bit until the mutineers take over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

EVula, are you currently in favor of no straw poll, or a straw poll with 2 options, 3 options (RFDA only for future admins), or more? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I ran this same question by the people who originally mentioned a straw poll: Aervanath, Ironholds and Skomorokh. Vote was unanimous for going with a straw poll with 2 options. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suck at straw polls. That's a fact. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. your suggestion on reforming RfA

I was a bit lazy to read through the discussion at the talk page, plus I've taken a short-term break from editing Wikipedia for most of this month, but I wanted to say that I agree with the suggestion - and find it somewhat weird that there isn't some sort of de-adminship process in place already.

Perhaps RfA talk is a more appropriate place for me to mention this, but I figure, if we adopt some sort of desysop process, it needs to be a very stringent process that requires a very clear consensus that the editor cannot be trusted with the tools in order for the user to be desysopped (say, no less than 80-90% agreeing with the removal of the bit), otherwise the rate of which we'll be losing admins will probably increase. I also think we need more than one person to initiate the RfDA (maybe 5 editors in good standing certifying the need for it, give or take) so it won't be just some editor frustrated with an admin opening RfDA.

I'm not entirely sure why crats aren't given the ability to remove the sysop flag. If a process like this is accepted, then I think it would be a good idea to update the crat toolbox with this extra ability, so they won't have to scrounge all the way over to meta to get a stewart to do the dastardly deed.

Just my two cents, though. Great suggestion, and we need something like this in place. ArbCom is too lengthy and cumbersome a process to rely on for desysopping, I think. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I don't think that the possibility of an axe-grinder opening an RfDA and it gaining traction to be all that viable; all it takes is one look at the block log or deleted contribs and bam you've got your game-ending evidence. *sigh* EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was almost ready to sleep when I wrote this, so I wasn't exactly considering this thoroughly. You're right. Pointless of me to say, of course. But perhaps it still needs solid consensus to desysop somebody? Master&Expert (Talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree; I wouldn't be closing RfDAs with a 43% support for desysopping. Where I see RfA's default as being promote (the burden of evidence is on those that don't want the bit given), RfDA's default would be keep (the burden of evidence is on those that want the bit removed). If someone submits an RfDA and only a handful of people comment, that's not evidence of community will, so the bit wouldn't be removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steward election

Good luck! NB You write "I am extremely comfortable editing in numerous languages" but only list en in your nom, hence the question someone's already asked you... Cheers --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I quite conveyed what I mean... and the nomination's already been translated into a few new languages. Grr. I wonder if I can go ahead and answer the question? *shrug* I'll look into it later tonight. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper templating

Since CoI and the blocking policy is clear in stating that admin are not to block in articles that they are personally involved in, there is no justification for you to make such a claim, especially immediately after the entry before consensus can develop. This is an especially bad thing to try to push, especially when you wish to be a steward. I trust that you will do the right thing and correct your error. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would gladyly correct my error if I had made one. Your suggestion that this edit merits some sort of COI is ludicrous. Whatever history may be there is irrelevant; if an editor is making personal attacks like that against an administrator, there is no policy that states that said administrator cannot block the offending editor. Your interpretation of COI is severely, severely flawed.

I also don't especially appreciate your "threat" about my stewardship candidacy; you are more than welcome to bring this up there if you wish, as they are likely to consider it as ridiculous a charge as I do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I highly endorse your close, as I was about to do so myself. Once a vandal starts resorting to vandalizing the user(talk) pages of of the people that are reverting him, any ensuing block is, in my opinion, unquestionably preventative, which is very much in line with our blocking policy. Good call. --slakr^\ talk / 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not giving time for consensus and trying to close a thread immediately when it was created by an editor in good standing is an abuse. Stewards are held to a high standard, and such treatment as that and flagrant disregard for standard consensus based discussion is highly inappropriate. This is compounded by the fact that the blocking policy clearly states: "Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.". A user page falls within this area, which undermines your complete argument. Thus, you have no grounds to even justify your defiance of consensus procedures. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you about this on my talk page. You're bordering on making ridiculously stupid threats, and I'm not in the mood to deal with it. Wanna report it on my stewardship candidacy page? Be my guest. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki bots

Hi EVula, first, thanks for your help on the English Wikiquote main page. Second, I was more than happy to read the following on your user page: Often, when an article is created in another language and the proper interwiki link is added to the English article, the other pages are left in the dark. I like to help fix that. Which brings me to my question: I am looking for some bot to help me with the interwiki links when I write a new wiki article: I can provide the link to English to it and vice versa, so it can go around and put the interwiki link to my article in the related other language ones (and vice versa). Also, it'd be nice if it could also sort these interwiki links alphabetically. Do you know of any such bots? And if so, could you please introduce them to me? Thanks a lot, Chaojoker (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words; I'm very proud of my interwiki contributions, and love to hear that my work is appreciated. :)
I honestly have zero experience with bots. I've registered a separate username for an eventual bot, but that's as close as I've gotten; the fact that I have no idea how to run a bot is one of the reasons that I do all my interwiki stuff by hand... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, one of the articles I watch is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. There is an edit war there at the moment, which, as a new Admin, I am not sure how to handle. Can I take up your kind offer of advice on this? Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I knew that whole "ask me any questions you may have" thing was gonna bite me in the ass one of these days... ;)

What exactly is the edit war over? I've skimmed the talk page, but as I'm extremely unfamiliar with the subject (and don't deal with edit wars very often, so I'm hardly a voice of authority on the matter; anyone that stalks my talk page wanna weigh in?), I'm having a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around it. If both editors can agree to stop editing and talk, I think that'll be good, but if they keep editing after you told them to stop, protect the page (or block as needed; just make sure you're even with your dealing with them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's very helpful. I will formally ask them to stop and talk and reluctantly block if needed. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at K50 Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

User Name

I'm just updating an old laptop (that was last online 467 days ago apparently) and it occured to me that EVULA is a perfect acronym for End Vindictive user licence agreements. Random comment of the day for ya :) Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah, that's great. There was an acronym generator somewhere online back in the day that came up with a fantastic definition for my username, and now I can't remember what it was (or where the program is). Blast. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock votes

Just wondering what your opinion was (since I was going to safest route) - in terms of voting, any sock is removed outright? Would it be sufficient to leave a notice in the edit summary? If it is (somehow) proven that they weren't a sock (if that is even possible) does the vote go back in? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA is open to any member of the community in good standing -> blocked users are not in good standing -> blocked socks of blocked users are not allowed to participate in RfAs.
If it was a legitimate sock, there wouldn't be an issue. And, to be honest, it's a bit of a toss-up between indenting and removing outright; I favor the latter, as I think eliminating all evidence of a sock's presence goes a long way towards taking the fun out of socking (consider it an alternate interpretation of WP:DFTT).
Hypothetically speaking, yes, if User:Kristen Eriksen were to be unblocked due to faulty sockpuppet evidence, her !vote should be restored. I would be more than happy to reverse my own edit in such a situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Multiple opinions are always useful in some of the more obscure situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your answer to my sortable wikitables question at WP:VPT

Hi EVula, due to my inexperience with code and wikitables, I was hoping you could expound on the answer you provided at WP:VPT on the question of centreing columns in sortable wikitables. From what I could gather, your suggestion (.wikitable-center3 tbody tr td+td+td) and Blue-Haired Lawyer's addition (.col3-center) seem as though they may be a better option; needing style="text-align: center"| for each cell is cumbersome and will clutter the contents of the table more than I expected. Could you provide an example of how this would work and where the code would be used; perhaps (if it's easier for you) to the sortable wikitable already in place at List of female tennis players? Thank you very much, Maedin\^talk 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd need to test it out in my userspace first, since I'd have to tweak my monobook files just to see if it'll work. I'll try to whip something up at some point today. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:User HD-DVD

I notice that you previously deleted this template under CSD:T1. I fail to see how it is divisive or inflammatory, and in any case CSD:T1 is (effectively) defunct now. I invite you to restore the template; otherwise I will list at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV it is, then. T1 being defunct now, almost two years since its deletion, makes very little difference; it was a very pointy userbox that doesn't serve any purpose but to say "fuck you." There's no way in hell that I'm undeleting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

*looks* Er...what does that say? GlassCobra 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

AACS encryption key controversy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, listed. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For my own reference: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 30#User HD-DVD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewart Elections

Good luck with the stewart elections. I'm not eligible to vote (I don't have 600 edits prior to November 1 '08) but I can guarantee you would have my support if I were. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point, I don't have much faith in it passing (a couple of arguments I think are valid, even though there are some damn good stewards that aren't multi-lingual), but at least I'll have some sort of road map for what to focus on in the coming year. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another spiritual vote of support towards your steward candidacy. In this case, I haven't edited enough in the last...gosh, six months? to qualify. Haven't been editing too heavily since I started my new job. Anyways, I'm all for it - and remember, even if you think it's a long shot, anything's better than a snowball's chance in hell. :) Coreycubed (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, there are at least a half-dozen people who have voted that aren't eligible to do so, so you're in good company. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

EVula was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On February 1, 2009, User:EVula was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Martin Scorsese was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

The inscription is in the description (I recently cropped and de-saturated the image, so if it appears warped for a bit, that's why). --David Shankbone 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an induction with a picture of Scorsese? Screw the steward elections, at least I've got this. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Recording updated audio of Wikipedia:Be Bold

I had begun recording an updated spoken version of the Be bold article because the last audio recording of the article reflects a version now two years old. I had begun recording but then noticed that a number of things could have been worded better. I edited the article for this reason. I noticed that you've made a number of changes to the article before. Do you have any ideas for the article before I attempt to record it? I also posted this on the article's talk page. Thanks, PicklePower (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on it either way. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikispecies

Hi, I'm leaving this message on the talkpage of several of the Wikispecies admins. User:Cheesecracker has spent an hour and a half running riot through Wikispecies. I couldn't find an admin urgently so requested help from the Stewards. A two hour block has been placed while cleanup occurs. Can an indefinite block please be used? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the always-awesome Pathoschild got to it. Good work in reporting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, EVula/Jan-Mar 2009, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Willking1979 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard to believe it's been three years... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User

give me a while to think about a user name DCsniper207 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No rush; just fill out a new request when you know what you want. In the meantime, I've marked the old request with {{notdone}}, so that it doesn't show as open to other 'crats (and can be archived). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. The user requested his initially desired change once already, and it was approved and supposedly done here:[1]. He's only back because he thinks that someone changed it back on him:[2].--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

well i g2g right now to pick a couple things up and it could take a while ill submit a new one around maybe 4 or 6 o clock (takes forever to get to portland)--DCsniper207 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Change it to Brawl_09 DCsniper207 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help him with his originally accepted request? He's asking me why it didn't take.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about what is going on, honestly. DCsniper, can you not log into your AcesUpMaSleeve account? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The change did work. He re-registered under the same name, as you can see from this link. I have blocked the name indefinitely. Andre (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Andre. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your election page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement written. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the opportunity to throw my hat in the ring for oversight this time round then. Unfortunate :( Pedro :  Chat  14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This definitely seems the sort of thing that will roll back around; for what it's worth, if I had any pull to get you on the docket, ticket, ledger, or whatever the hell it is, I would. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's purely a timezone thing. I'm not fussed about CU or whatever, but I'm one of the few active admins at 07:00 - 11:00 UTC - and having had to request oversight before between those times I understand the issues. Hey-ho - when they hext need some names I guess. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My editing times are crazy wacky these days (the other night, I stopped work at 6:30am CST). I'm hoping that I can cut the average delay between OS reporting and resolving. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Got my vote for that! Not convinced about your Steward request though - I've not commented but hats / languages seem pretty major issues for a lot of folks - and me too. Sorry :( Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings; I feel both are valid arguments... though I think the language issue isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be, given the areas I've stated that I'd like to work in (speedy deletion and SUL issues). As for too many hats... *shrug* Not much I can do about that except give up the bits on several projects where I still need/use them at. C'est la vie. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Syropping

You might have gotten the issue confused just a bit, replied back on the noticeboard. Secret ^account 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying there. Don't worry, I know that something like that is going to generate further discussion, so I'm definitely watching it like a hawk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stopped the discussion. Secret has RTV'ed (ugh - is that right!). No more value was forthcoming. Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure he actually RTV for while I see now it is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity," Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as hidden account as a fresh start. It has been made clear to me that we can change usernames, but must keep our edits, blocks, etc. still attached to our new name and that starting over as a new account is not okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art

Sorry for the short notice, but any interest in taking a field trip to Chattanooga this weekend for the Wikipedia Loves Art event? Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, I'd love to, but I can't; too short notice, yes, but I've also got plans this weekend. Sorry. :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Neil Patrick Harris - what appears to be persistent vandalism

I noticed that you recently placed a block on User talk:216.161.94.189 for vandalism to Neil Patrick Harris. The user has done the same thing again with this edit [3] and I've just reverted it. I thought that you might want to know in case you want to block him again. James500 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked last time because it was immediately after the vandalism, so I was sure I'd be hitting the vandal; right now, it's been a bit too long after the edit, so I don't feel as comfortable. Next time... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd

Um, why? [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...I have no idea. I think I hit the wrong link on my watchlist? Dunno. Thanks for the heads up. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done that before! DuncanHill (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's from the rollback links now being on the watchlist; I'm honestly surprised I hadn't done it already. :) I wonder if they can be turned off via a monobook tweak... *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a thread about turning them off, may have been on AN, or ANI, or the Help Desk, or Village Pump, or quite possibly somewhere else entirely! not a lot of help, sorry! DuncanHill (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I'm hoping that I'll just be more cognizant about it in the future. If it happens again, I'll start looking into a better solution. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hello EVula, could you please protect the redirect page User:Hukukcu. Thank you. -- Hukukçu (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine OverWiki

Hello there, remember me? Of course you do. ;-) Anyway, I have a request. Since MattyDienhoff and I are the only active admins and that we heavily contribute (I personally have the insane editcount of 16,215, acquired in a few months, created many templates and cats, uploaded tons of pics, etc.), I request that we get nominated bureaucrats. We'd remove most of the inactive admins from the list (like the ones who last edited in 2007) and maybe we'd nominate 1 or 2. Thanks for your answer, I hope it will be positive! Cheers Klow (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Congrats

Excellent. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty surprised I made it, considering how incredibly tight it was. I'll try not to delete the Main Page er, promote Willy on Wheels er... wait, what's the usual joke for abusing the tools when it comes to Oversight? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, EVula! :) Versus22 _talk 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it's time to convince people that you really did only go through one RfB. :D Congratulations on receiving the Oversight tool, and thanks for running in the first CU-OV election. Acalamari 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, if anyone had told me then that I'd have the flag in less than a year's time, I would have told them they were full of it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello. I need to e-mail you concerning this discussion, lots of new user's RFA's. Whether or not what I have is a minor issue is another thing, but I think you may want to see this. Thanks. America69 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fire away. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, I will send it very soon. Thanks. America69 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Survival Guide

Damn, you're just quicker than me at reverting that vandalism! Keep up the good work! -Noosentaal^·talk· 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The ZSG article was my first (and pretty much only) major encyclopedic contribution to Wikipedia. I protect it like a friggin' hawk, since it generates so much vandalism. :) (though usually it's just people removing the various "fictional" tags from the article) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic (South Park)

Hi. Can you ask the user formerly known as The Haunted Angel to offer his/her opinion on the conflict described here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, if he (as a new user) suddenly happened upon that discussion, he'd likely out himself, which would void the entire purpose of the RTV. :) I believe he has my talk page watchlisted, however, so I'll leave it to him to involve himself or not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Congrats on getting elected to oversight! I know you'll do a good job. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've played around with the new button a little bit, just to get the hang of it before testing it out on a real issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it easy to use? Master&Expert (Talk) 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much; I just say "hey, that should disappear" and voila, it does. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

Please revert the closure on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Syjytg. I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNOW and I wish for the RfA to run for the full time. Syjytg (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that anything productive will come from reopening the RfA. You reference Mythdon's RfA, but that one was closed prematurely by a bureaucrat as well. If you can explain to me why you want it to run a full week, I'll consider reopening it, but until then, it remains closed.
Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Syjytg for discussion about the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your reply on your talk page. Syjytg (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I only posted it about twenty minutes ago, so don't feel bad about not seeing it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'In general, assuming a good faith nomination or self-nomination, if a candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time then this is acceptable.' I was referring to this right. On why I want it to run it the full-term. Because opening it longer means more people can write, so I can better prepare for future RFAs. Syjytg (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a guaranteed right; it's a generalization of what typically happens.

As for your reason... I'm sorry, but I'm definitely not going to reopen the RfA. You're confusing the RfA process with the editor review process. While a good RfA should give the candidate some constructive criticism for where they should focus their attention for future self-improvement (even for RfAs that pass), this facet of the process is secondary to the entire point of RfA: vetting and discussing potential administrators. It's abundantly clear that the RfA will not pass (perhaps a better page to reference is WP:SNOW), and all of the feedback you were receiving was along the same lines; first, it was that it was far too early for you to be running and RfA, and then it became (when you refused to delist the RfA) that your stubbornness to accept the community's general wishes was a liability. Reopening it will not garner you any additional insight into where you need to focus your attention.

Honestly, I think you should just put the entire RfA situation behind you and concentrate on improving the encyclopedia; to continue to insist that the RfA run will do you far more harm at future RfAs than I think you realize. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have signed up for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching. Do I need to update my edit count reguarly over there? Syjytg (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think admin coaching is fairly premature, but to answer your question, no, you don't need to update your edit count there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Syjytg page? Syjytg (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that such things should stand on their own and not brushed under the rug. Future RfAs won't be judged too harshly by your first one; it's just a newbie mistake. Seriously, the only one obsessing about it is you; just put it behind you and concentrate on the future. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syjytg/monobook.js due to no content? Syjytg (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, though there wasn't really much need for it to be deleted. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Try again

Cool, thanks. That was rather confusing, glad it's fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

Mind explaining the point in this? It's the second one for this user. Also, I have fixed the things that were broken, but you moved it back again. Also, this use of rollback is highly inappropriate. — Aitias // discussion 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was watching that whole thing unfold. Looks like it was pretty frustrating, but I think it got sorted out now. Useight (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, your talkpage has a bunch of text overlapping, but I think I can fix it. Useight (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine? Where? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, everything after the SignPost is piled on top of each other. Mine talkpage was doing the same thing to me. Useight (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks fine to me, but if you know how to fix it, by all means, work your magic. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now it looks good to me, too. I wonder if it is only a problem for those using IE6. Useight (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Groovy, thanks. Probably; IE6 is horrible when it comes to rendering CSS. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to fix everything that you broke as quickly as possible, hence the rollback (which I'll admit is outside of the norm). There are proper ways of tagging pages as a user's second RfA; changing the name of the RfA isn't one of them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are proper ways of tagging pages as a user's second RfA — What are these proper ways? :) — Aitias // discussion 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RfAs for this user:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Things that have to be changed when an RfA gets moved: (you didn't ask, but I feel like pointing this out anyway)

1. Fix the level 3 heading on the RfA (should be a link to the RfA itself; when you just move, it links to the old one, so it doesn't work properly)
2. Fix the "voice your opinion" link (otherwise it's an edit link to the old location)
3. Fix the main RfA link (so that the bots don't get confused; may not be necessary, but good housekeeping)
4. Fix all the various RfA status templates (I use my list at User:EVula/admin#RfA closure). This also includes fixing the report links, as they don't work if they look at a redirect.
5. Make sure the "previous RfAs" box doesn't mistakenly display content that it shouldn't (such as redirects).

I moved the RfA, did those things, and then you just up and moved it back. Very, very frustrating; if you felt I was wrong, you should have brought it to my attention, not just up and reverted me; the back-and-forth with the RfA's location caused a minor bit of confusion for a couple of different editors.

As for the best way to tie related RfAs together, that would be via the aforementioned "previous RfAs" box, which is what I did.[5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late reply, but unfortunately I've been busy with other things. Firstly, I'd like to say thanks for the detailed explanation. Secondly, I want to apologise for frustrating you with the move; that was not my intention at all. I simply thought you had not noticed that the user already had a RfA under another username. Sorry again, — Aitias // discussion 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; seriously, if this is the worst thing that I have to deal with on-wiki for a while, I'll be very, very happy. All I ask is that next time, ask first; other than that, I fully plan on totally forgetting about this in about five minutes. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! — Aitias // discussion 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars invitation

I have noticed that you are listed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, which has been defunct for a long time. I would like to inform you that I am attempting to revitalize it. As such, I would officially like to invite you to participate in the project once again. If you are interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Star Wars#February 2009 Roll Call. Hope to see you soon! Firestorm ^Talk 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded, thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine OverWiki, again

Hi, did you see my message? Klow (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Online?

Hi EVula, sorry if this seems like a strange question, but I noticed you were online a few minutes ago. Will you be online for the next 10? Thanks. Acalamari 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm around and about; email would probably be the best way to grab my attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Thanks. Acalamari 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Acalamari 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are both evil AND helpful

Thank you! I've always wondered how that was spelled. Unschool 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can, and I do it well. *bows* EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I bacome administrators of wikipedia ?

As the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFatPigCa (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I'd recommend using your new username, not your old one; that will just cause problems down the road.

As for recommendations, if you approach WP:RFA with a substantial body of work, spread out over both the encyclopedia (by improving articles) and the project-level pages (such as participating in article deletion discussions), in several months' time you should find becoming an administrator a breeze. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You are nice. :-) Can you offer an Email address ?

Er, what do you mean? If you need to email me, you can use the "E-mail this user" link on the side. If you need a new email provider, Gmail is pretty much the best. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How Do I Shot Web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by spidey (talk • contribs)

There are different methods you could take. On the one hand, you could build mechanism that has to be constantly refilled, but can be adapted for whatever villain you're facing. The other option is to have a film made about you, in which case they'll just change it to be an innate ability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A Question ?

Dear EVula, I have a question that needs your help. I used to have an account registered with a name "Jack". Then I change this original user name into "Jones". According to the renaming principle of wikipedia, all account name "Jack" in the edit history page should be converted into "Jones" . However, as I found, the origianl account name still appears in the edit history page. For example, it mays shows that "Reverted edits by Jack (talk) to last version by administrator". Here the origianl account still appears and I still can log in with "Jack". I just want to know, under such case, how could I make the old name "Jack" totally disappeared in all edit history page. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFatPigCa (talk • contribs) 11:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing that can be done to change the edit summaries. Sorry.

Also, are you ever going to start using your new account, or are you going to continue using your original one? I'm confused why you asked for the rename in the first place now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I mean I want to replace all the appearance of my original name with the new account name. i.e., making my old account name disappeared on history page, with it being replaced with the new one. Could you please help to solve this problem ? BigFatPigCa (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The name in the edit history is changed, but you're continuing to use your old account, and there's nothing I can do about those edits. Log into your new account if you'd like your edits to be under your new name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine OverWiki, again 2

Hi, since you are not answering (and I wonder why), I asked the bureaucrats rights directly to the Wikia staff, and they were granted. I removed RelentlessRecusant and Donut THX 1138 and I might also remove you, since you are not contributing anymore. Removed admins could be replaced by other ones. Thanks for reading. Klow (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad EVula! *pokes with stick* ~ mazca ^t|c 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as a decent result of my inattentiveness to the wiki. I just didn't have time for it (and the past month or so has been incredibly hectic for me; for the entire month of March, I only edited here twice). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohio meetup location

Where should the Ohio meet up take place? The best option is probably wherever the most people can attend, so you opinion counts. See Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Ohio 1#Location !vote. I really hope that you can make the trip. It'd be fun. :) hmwithτ 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Word. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for my game back a while ago. There was no answer. I hope you forgive me. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only apology I need from you is constructive edits. If you can do that, I'll happily consider it all water under the bridge. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, EVula/Jan-Mar 2009, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Versus22 _talk 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting archives of user talk pages

Got a question, EVula. You just renamed "Booglamay" to "Cycle~". He's now requesting that some archives of his former talk pages be deleted per U1. I know I'm not supposed to delete talk pages per U1, but I don't know about archives and I don't know about talk pages under the old name for recently renamed users. Can you fill me in? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I've been meaning to ask someone about this. Is the answer yes you can delete archives that are copies of information from talkpages but not archives that are made by moving the talk page to archive n? That way all the talkpage info is available in page history to any editor. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I did that back in December; hardly recent. :P
If the pages are just the leftover redirects that come from renaming, they can very safely be deleted under G6 (or U1, but I use G6 simply because it casts a bigger net). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)