If the page was deleted before I had a chance to post a { {hangon }}, how do I add this without recreating the page? [[User:Pokey little puppy|Pokey little puppy]] 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If the page was deleted before I had a chance to post a { {hangon }}, how do I add this without recreating the page? [[User:Pokey little puppy|Pokey little puppy]] 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you this barnstar because you [[User:EVula/awards|don't already have one]]. <small>There's also the fact that you're an excellent editor, but we shouldn't let such technicalities get in the way, eh?</small> Use it well! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[User:G1ggy/Contribs |Contribs]]</sub> 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is EVula's talk page, which shouldn't be a surprise if you clicked the link...
My general guidelines:
If I (EVula) left you a comment on your talk page, please just respond there, not here, so that conversations aren't spread out. Similarly, if you post something here, I will respond here.
I've made it a bit more outrageous (and added a comment confirming that I'm joking). That should kill any doubts. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...hmm, you have a good point. If someone can oppose self-noms on principle, I should be able to oppose people for not having 100,000 edits! EVula// talk // ☯ //21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a policy stating that I shouldn't use profanity in edit summaries, otherwise I will consider this to be merely your personal preference and respectfully ignore it. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Hehe Haha. Gorrilla, Godzilla, George Bush. The more the deadly. AAAhhhh. I found your edits to be really funny. Have a good day.RuneWiki77723:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked this user the other day for 3RR and I thought I'd come to you about him because I'm not quite sure what to do. If you check out his recent contribs you'll see he's still edit warring over fair use images and being rude and overbearing. Also check out this thread, which I'm not quite sure to make of. I'd assume that he's joking with that last comment but it seems very disruptive. As well as that, he has racist 'jokes' on his user page. He's pretty much ignoring every word of advice that people give him. Is there something we can do? It's making the work me and others do on RHCP articles much more difficult. Kamryn Matika16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User warned about NPA for the racist bit. I don't care about the racist jokes on his userpage, as they are easily ignored by not visiting the page. I'll try to keep an eye on the article talk page, and deal with Xihix accordingly. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, I'm not a bureaucrat (don't worry, I can't spell that word to save my life either), though I hope to submit an RfB at some point in the very near future. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user that keeps vandalizing Paul Harris (basketball). I have reverted it twice (it has been vandalized four times overall) and he keeps coming up with different usernames to edit. He keeps adding the phrase "has a very good friend in harlem new york Daniel Javier a guard at Thurgood Marshall Academy has sing a letter of intent to play at Army next year." Please help. Thanks. Chengwes23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the award EVula, the whole flameviper situation has given me a lot to think about. I still believe in time he can be a constructive contributor, he certainly has a lot to give, maybe when the maturity level grows he can return and be an asset to our project. I'm just dissapointed he betrayed the trust I had in him, especially commenting with a sock to try and get his block lifted - oh well, life moves on. Cheers again - Ryan Postlethwaite10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the second thread until it was already closed. I read the bit about being re-blocked for using the puppet, and just hung my head. Maybe in another year or so we can consider unblocking him, but no time soon. *sigh* EVula// talk // ☯ //13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mac OS X images
Well, the suitability is an issue, which we were discussing at the article talk page, but it was not the point here. What I asked was just because a screenshot was copied off a web page, does it become a copyvio regardless of everything else? Yeah, I know the policy and as I interpret it, its not (assuming its irreplaceable and has a valid FUR). I just want to know if my interpretation is missing anything.
I would also like my actions regarding Mac OS X v10.5 article reviewed. I was asked to take a look at the content (screenshot) dispute in the article (which is not one that I edit regularly). I saw edit warring over screenshots and that neither party was willing to talk, I protected the article to get them to talk, and unprotected it some half an hour later when the discussion had commenced, and removed the offending images (which looked somewhat inappropriate to me) pending consensus and then got involved in the discussion. --soumtalk16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats something, shall I say, ridiculous. We spend so much time making sure we dont violate Apple's copyrights, when they dont give a damn about ours!!! --soumtalk17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if only we could vindictively use the previously deleted images! :) As for everything else, I'll have to check it out later; I'm at work, and try (sometimes successfully) to keep my wikiing to a minimum. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question was nominated for deletion less than a month ago. There are clear indications that it is potentially divisive and problematic. --Ghirla-трёп-17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing around accusations of a conspiracy (that Wikipedia is controlled by a group of admins with access to that particular IRC channel) is trolling. An MfD nomination is completely irrelevant; there are plenty of pages that require additional work, but the editors don't make sweeping blanket statements of paranoia. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for you...
VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! After reading all the insults and violent threats on your userpage, I just had to show you some WikiLove. It's the weepy bleeding-heart pacifist in me I guess. Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks very much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250thadministrator. Your comments were much appreciated, and I will endeavour to fulfil your expectations as an admin.
*bows* I do try. :) (I've also netted myself four Barnstars of Good Humor... I might be as close to a "class clown" as we've got around here) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sure wouldn't mind being born then. But I also don't mind being born on what turns out to be Vanuatu's Independence Day—and I share a birthday with Emily Brontë, Hilary Swank, and…Arnold Schwarzenegger! :D — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now if you can only get invited to a joint birthday party! Well, of Swank and Schwarzenegger... a party with Brontë probably wouldn't be particularly lively. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You know, I've been impressed with how often your comments make sense. Much more often than mine. I'd give you a barnstar, but I regard them as the Devil's Own Virtual Decorations. MastCellTalk04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, thanks! But uh... what page did I revert on that caught your attention? I've got no clue what "Ta 183" is. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EVula. these comments were spot on. The applicant was a lad of 15, and I spent a lot of time in discussion gently trying to tell him that his RfA had no chance. I think you premature closing was fully justified, and I'm delighted you took the time to explain it in such a pleasent fashion. The last thing we need is to lose good editors and future potential admins! Pedro | Chat 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but I think that closing it early is better, in the long run, than letting it run its course and end up with forty "Oppose" !votes. I wrote up {{User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA}} for situations just like this one. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with your SNOWballing of this RFA. I did want to comment that, when I did something similar, the RFA candidate objected and the advice that I got from other editors was to let the RFA run. It seems some RFA candidates like to use the RFA process as a kind of editor review.
Thus, in practice, I think it is better to ask the candidate to withdraw and, if that fails, let the "pile on" continue so that the candidate gets the point. If nothing else, the candidate learns to withdraw when counseled to do so.
Trust me, it wasn't the snap decision that some of my RfA closures, such as U-Two's was. I thought about it, but in the end, decided that it was better to give Zach a more serious (and productive) shock by closing the RfA rather than allow it to degenerate to a possible negative (and entirely unproductive) situation that could easily be considered a WP:BITE violation.
As for editors wanting their RfAs to be editor reviews... well, that's not what RfA is for. There are plenty of other avenues to use for feedback (which is why I've loaded up User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA with those links). I'd be tempted to close those RfAs on principle alone. :)EVula// talk // ☯ //21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If after comparing the edits of the two a pattern is formed, that'd be a good reason to request a checkuser; I generally don't assume sock puppetry without either a checkuser or some damn strong evidence. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:RfA
Actually, I'm kind of glad that you closed it, but I certainly wanted more comments (good or bad, it makes me strive to improve myself). However, know that I bear no ill feeling whatsoever to you for closing my RfA. I went there to see how I would fare, and now that I know, well...I'll try again. Cheers!!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[en] As a dedicated Wikimedian, I don't limit myself to just one project or just one language.](/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg){kind=logo}
