User talk:EVula

user page // talk page

admin • opining • matrix • fun • awards

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.	Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections). Separate topic sections with ==A descriptive header==, and put new topics at the bottom of the page.

Reason #87423 why EVula is teh best

Made fresh, just for you. hmwithτ 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for wikignoming the shit out of my userpages. And you wonder why I need you in my life? So, basically, I made you a special present for when you come home from the wiki-office. Enjoy. hmwithτ 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks dear! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:17, 30 April 2008 (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.

New messages from Mifter

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

--Mifter (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If got you on my watchlist, no need to place this tag; trust me, I'll find you... mwuhahah!
*cough* 'Scuse me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

recent warning

Hi, your recent warning made me feel :( It was my first edit and you used a sledgehamnmer to crack a walnut; it was just a joke lighten up. May i remind you of wp:newbies. Thank you for your time and may the force be with you.--Gibbon45 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your very first edit being borderline harassment is a very choice of a first edit. Perhaps I overreacted, I'm willing to say, but you should also be cognizant of how your edits are likely to be interpreted by others. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits as those is classified as cyberbullying, which is classified as harassment in the United States. Although I'm not going to go wild over it, other people might, so just remember to think before you speak (or in this case type). GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for !voting in my Rfa. I hope I can learn and build from it. CJ2005B (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it went down the way it did, but I'm glad you aren't taking any of it personally. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hello again, just following up and wondering what editing needs to be done so the article on Ringler Associates will not be subject to deletion. Thanks Ringlernm (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that feel completely off my radar.

I took another look at Ringler Associates. Aside from the fact that it comes across as blatant advertising for the company, it also does nothing to establish Ringler's notability. I'd recommend gathering up some reliable sources (such as news articles) that suggest that Ringler Associates is notable enough to be in Wikipedia.

If you have any other questions, just drop me a line. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Eh? Not that I'm one to turn down a barnstar, but I don't recall reverting any vandalism on your userpage.. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess who

Go on, take a guess who it is before you click, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping it was a supermodel asking for advice about which bra looked better. Boy was I wrong... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

When all those votes were cast, the RfA was transcluded. It was removed by balloonman because the user had under ten edits. Tan | 39 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I just came here to say, "wow, that was vague" and to specify what I was talking about, but it looks like you figured it out. Never mind, nothing to see here. Tan | 39 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that about 10 seconds after removing them, and then promptly reverted myself. Sometimes being bored at work can have devastating effects. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod... edits wikipedia instead of work...Balloonman (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Email blocks

Hey, EVula. Just a reminder that email should not be disabled as a default when blocking accounts. Per the blocking policy, email should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Eep. Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's a bit of a pet peeve (odd, I know) and I've seen a fair number of admins doing it. Thanks for the quick response. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a legitimate thing to have as a pet peeve. I generally only do it to accounts that I feel don't feel like have a snowball's chance of getting unblocked (blatant username vios, vandalism-only accounts, etc), but if it's against policy, then it's against policy.
Besides, that's a better pet peeve than any of mine. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this. Gerrish (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Actually, it was my first rollback permissions change, so I should thank you for making the request. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it would have been my 355-something rollback granting had I been a few seconds faster. :) You beat me! :) Acalamari 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I felt someone breathing down my neck... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I've sent you an E-mail. Acalamari 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Get out of my head! [that will make no sense to anyone but Acalamari] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Made sense to me. But then again, I'm a minor prophet. And a snoop. And a private investigator. Also know as a Dick. I'm a dick. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm now going to quote that out of context whenever possible.
If you can email me exactly what Acalamari asked me, I'll consider not quoting it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very scary! Acalamari 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EVula, you might want to take at Gerrish's recent rollback contribs. Many of them are not vandalism reverts. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his last forty edits, and all the rollbacks looked valid to me (there was a total of one that was very mildly concerning). Anything in particular that you noticed? I can't do a more thorough check at the moment, but can later tonight. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd be interested as well. Please enlighten. Gerrish (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi didn't mean to come off as accusatory. Here are some: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Obviously good faith reverts, but these are not blatant vandalism. I also agree they are mild, but this is just in the last two days since the tool was given. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's standard that the date articles don't allow red links. PseudoBot (talk · contribs) does the exact same reverts with no explanation.[6] Another example of yours is spam - also a candidate for rollback per my understanding. In general, my protocol is to use rollback whenever the reason for the revert is - as you said - obvious, like this one where someone claims the Mets won the NL pennant in 2006. Obviously untrue. Gerrish (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let EVula deal with it, but correct protocol for rollback is NOT whenever the reason is obvious. I revert things that are obvious all the time, but if they are not blatant vandalism, I undo with a detailed explanation. The Mets one is the best example. Of course they didn't win the pennant, but they did win their division for first time in 18 years or whatever and had the best record in the NL, so its not crazy that a user would have mistaken that. I'm fairly sure we don't rollback such edits. Some of those date articles were good faith additions, albeit wrong. The football manager was put in death when it should have been birth... this is an error, not vandalism. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that depends on your definition of "blatant". To the casual observer, no, it's not a major gaffe. But for the editor, there's only a little bit of leeway we should give them in regards to their intentions; I can only barely believe that the person actually factually thought that the Mets really did win in 2006. As a result, it's blatant because the intent was malicious (though that might be too strong a term; I don't think they were out to destroy Wikipeda, but I have trouble believing in their good intentions). Same with the football manager; the edit said he was born in the 1880s, which is ridiculous, and it came at the expense of an existing listing (ie: I would have a different attitude about their intentions if it had been a new addition to the list).

I think removing redlinks from date pages[7] and potential spam[8] should be done with a manual edit summary, however, even if the usual bot doesn't even do that. If you do more than the bot, you're just ensuring that humanity can put off our eventual overthrowing by machines. ;)

Gerrish, since you're watching this, I'll just point out here that perhaps you should be less trigger-happy with the rollback, but even these examples I wouldn't consider to be particularly outlandish violations of rollback; I know I've been guilty of removing bogus content from March 17 (my birthday) with rollback (and to be fair, date articles tend to attract a lot of bogus edits; I'm willing to believe that I'm not 100% clear-minded on this front). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but I'll point out that WP:ROLLBACK#When not to use Rollback says not to use it "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back"... In the examples given above, I had no doubt - and I don't think you folks would have either. Gerrish (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Ha! I didn't no that EV was a patty. Happy b-day, patty. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The deeply ironic part is that I don't drink. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You could always wear green though. I don't drink either. I guzzle. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:37, 8 May 2008 (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.

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting that on my user page. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fun to scurry about in peoples' userspace. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indents

You just messaged me as I realised. ;) Thanks! asenine ^{say what?} 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I completely missed a line when I went in to correct the indentation. D'oh! EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further issues...

Could you take a look here? This was the recent RfA candidate in question. I'm not sure how user pages like this are handled... if some of the info there needs to be permanently deleted, or if the whole account is problematic because the user may not be in fact the real-life person they claim to be. I guess this is something I need to learn about, but in the mean-time, I thought I'd ask admin to see if anything needs to be done quickly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've purged the edit from the page's history, and left a stern warning for the anon (with it being their only edit, I can't tell how dynamic their IP is, so a block might not do any good, and I'd rather see some more editing from them before I block them). At the very least, it was a probably copyvio. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. On this topic: when a user account is created with the user claiming to be a real-life person, with a real picture of said person shown, is this always OK? I am not doubting in this case that Bkerensa is the person he says he is, but what is to stop someone from looking up that name on a news search and creating a wikipedia account with such info? The concern that I have is potentially controversial real life people may draw others to come and post whatever nasty stuff they can find... as shown on that user:page and in the RfA. Hypothetically, if Bkerensa wasn't actually Kerensa, the real life person might be quite upset about such an account. Sorry if I'm getting too theoretical. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One possibility would be to look up and contact a non-Wikipedia email for this person to verify that it's really them. I too have been left wondering whether this really is the real-life person it claims to be, or someone else trying to make that person look bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[ec] It's a very fine line, and one dependent on many different factors. The primary factor here, though, is the fact that Benjamin Kerensa (the one mentioned in the article; to reduce confusion, I'll just call him Mr. Kerensa) doesn't have an article (non-notable), and I personally consider notability to be paramount when deciding whether a username is acceptable or not. If Mr. Kerensa had an article, I'd be a lot wearier of allowing Bkerensa to proclaim himself under the same name (though due to the difference in the exact name, I'd be inclined to allow it, as long as a specific declaration were made that Bkerensa was not the same as Mr. Kerensa).

Another factor that would normally come into play would be, for instance, how common the name is. I wouldn't jump all over User:John Smith as being John Smith (comics), though someone named User:Jimmy Smits would be a bit more actionable. Behavioral patterns matter as well; someone named User:Mbrooks editing Max Brooks would raise an eyebrow, whereas someone named User:Lhutton (see Lauren Hutton) editing Jair Iglesias is a lot less suspicious.

I'd also like to point out how much time it took me to find those samples. For example, I discovered that Carey goes straight to Jim Carey, and that pretty much every John Smith is dead, which almost completely wrecked my first example. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good points. For me, in this case, I see two problems. Acknowledging that Mr. Kerensa is not notable enough for his own article, there is still personal info about Mr. Kerensa on user BKerensa's talk page. So, the username thing aside, there still might be BLP issues here (although the info is no defamatory). The other issue, as I briefly mention on David's page, is that the negative article about Mr. Kerensa was added by an ip, and after that there seems to have been ample time for BKerensa to have seen it and removed it, but he allowed it to stay. I'm not sure on this because it is now a deleted edit. Either way, it raises a red flag for me. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, about the personal info of Mr. Kerensa vs. BKerensa, that's largely a toss-up. I'm willing to assume good faith on that front, given the dearth of evidence against it being the same person. In such a case, it comes down to behavioral observations; BKerensa has done nothing to make people think he's the same Mr. Kerensa that was mentioned in the article. All he's done is mention his name (which lots of editors do, myself included, though my name is a bit more hidden away). If you hadn't brought that edit to my attention, I never once would have considered him to be anyone other than who he is, or that he had ever done anything of note (good or bad).

As for the time elapsed, you're spot on; the anon made that edit on February 10, a fact that had completely passed me by. There are many ways that something like that can skip by; a common one is too many items in the watchlist (something I hit constantly, as I currently have 2,662 in my list; sometimes it's easier for me to use my contribs page than my watchlist). In looking at Special:Contributions/Bkerensa, however, there was a massive break in edits between November 16, 2007 and May 9, 2008. An edit that happened in mid-February would have been pretty far past his watchlist's furthest listing (I just hit "all" on my own watchlist, and it only goes back a single month). I've taken little wiki-vacations before (unannounced), and despite being a seasoned wiki veteran, I certainly don't feel the compulsion to check out my own userpage (surprise surprise, I'm not quite that vain...), so I'm willing to bet it didn't occur to BKerensa, either.

There does seem to be something strange afoot, between the IP edit and the attack RfA, but I'm not entirely sure what it is, and with the elapsed time between the two, it might very well just be a red herring. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Username

What is wrong with my username? I don't understand your concern.

–RWReagan (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The concern is the similarity to Ronald Reagan. Generally speaking, we don't allow usernames that are so close to the names of well known political figures. I'd recommend changing the username to something a bit more nondescript (even if it's your real name, sometimes using a pseudonym is better). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indentation of UAA templates

I do indent them with a few colons, but for some reason they never show up that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... sure enough. My bad. I'll go hacking around with the template to figure out what the deal is. Sorry about that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; it wasn't personal. I figured there was some problem with the template, and given the TfD and my uneasy skill when fixing template problems (I can do it ... I just prefer when possible to leave it to those who are better at it), I wasn't about to fix it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, editing templates is a bit more nerve-wracking them editing articles; instead of screwing up one page, there's the possibility of screwing up hundreds! It's good times all around. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Avengers (film series)

This edit of mine was largely a mistake... I simply meant to add italics to Hulk. You accidently reverted the italics on that film when you reverted my entire change so I put the part I intended back. Sorry about the mix up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, simple enough mistake to make (I've done it myself). No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49

Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 22:57, 15 May 2008 (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.

Signature

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thanks for the help with my sig, even if it was purely codewise. Every little helps! :) asenine say what? 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)