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.

WP:UW

Hi,

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

Temp block of 75.41.208.17

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

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

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

Ah, thanks, but it's hitting the fan right now.[1] I've really had enough of Wikipedia. I can't believe that this systematic abuse of editors whose POV you disagree with is allowed to such a high degree on Wikipedia. It's shameful, imo, especially to the many good editors and the good that has been done on Wikipedia. KP Botany 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Help with Wikipedia's policies

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

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

Note

An editor has expressed to me in email their displeasure at your reverting of their edit.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warcraft (film)

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

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

Page is *not* a recreation of the AfDed article

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

Again, I refer to the G4 criteria:

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

It quite frankly isn't similar to the old version at all [3], which means it fails G4. Half of the references used in the article didn't even exist when the AfD was run, which clearly establishes that there have, indeed, been developments in regards to the film. There's no reason to send it through DRV because I've already shown that the original criteria for its deletion was incorrect (and the deleting administrator has agreed). Sending it through DRV is useless, as it would be undeleted and possibly sent through AfD.

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

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Could you please explain why you put {{db-author}} on Go God Go XII? [4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Serbophobia issues

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

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

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

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

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

OK, AfD-ed now. I was in a particularly bold mood too at the time of deletion; however, there was "a sort of notice" (and then some) though (tho' admittedly not in the deletion summary). When one gets two bolds on opposite sides, what remains between? (pun intended). Duja► 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Help

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

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

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

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

User:Freestyleking46

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haunted Angels Talk Page

Hello I noticed you removed content from the Haunted Angels talk page. I hate it that he has to deal with ignorant Christian harrassment, but it is his talk page and it is not up to you to remove content from another users talk page. American Brit 02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, personal attacks often get removed, regardless of where they are; see WP:NPA.

If this was an editor with a legitimate beef with THA, there's no way in hell I'd remove anything from his talk page. However, this is the same individual (or group) that has been harassing him for a long time, and I've already blocked them before. They've been warned not to post personal attacks, and yet they do it anyway; as a result, I remove them and block the individuals.

Considering that he's started removing some of the attacks as well, I don't think I'm stepping over any boundaries on this, but I do appreciate the concern. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like THA agreed with me.[5] :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your humor continues to amaze me and always brings a smile to my face. :) Cbrown1023 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Glad at least someone else is getting as much a kick out of the insults as I am.

And don't worry, I'm sure you'll start building your own little collection soon enough. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How long have you been waiting for that? :) Cbrown1023 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A long time. I've always had bad luck with AIV; before the bot, I was always clicking on users that had already been blocked, and since the bot has been running, it has always beaten me.

Beating the bot is pretty much the peak of my Wikipedia career. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

I replied to your comment on WP:AN. For future reference, thats not really the right place for that kind of thing. Posting a message on my talk page gets my attention immediately, (it actually causes AWB to stop running). I'm perfectly willing to re-visit any of the links I remove and discuss it without the need to waste space on WP:AN. Oh well... I do appreciate you checking on my work. I try to make sure I don't remove valid links, but I might occasionally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, probably not the best course of action, I admit, but I do think that it deserves a bit more attention than just the two of us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Either way, would you mind removing the link to copyvio material you added to Mortal Kombat II]? (see WP:C) ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User

I hereby award User:EVula with the Theodore Roosevelt Speak softly but carry a big stick Effective and Civil Admin Award. WAS 4.250 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you EVula for blocking the vandal that blanked my user page a few minutes ago. American Brit 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dont mind please ban another user. His name is User: Sir Christiandom and his edits have all been just personal attacks at a gay user named User:Dylankidwell and then me. His only non-talk page edit was a blanking of the page Same-Sex Marriage. American Brit 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I spelled it wrong but go to user Dils talk page history and you will find him American Brit 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User: WikiTitan is obviously a sock puppet of Sir etc. American Brit 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm opting to just severely warn him; if he does it again, I'll block his ass so fast he won't know what hit him... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EVula you ar enot going to stop me. I will destroy Wikipedia and you and American Brit and Dil WikiTitan 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing better than getting bit in the ass for being nice. Indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!--Dil 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; I enjoy squashing vandals. Your pain is my pleasure. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You may of stopped Wikititan but you wont stop me. God is on my side. Wikipedia is going down SirChristdom 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Set 'em up, knock 'em down. User indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EVula I bet youve had fun banning users tonight. Im just glad to see theyre gone American Brit 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I can't remember the last time I've been this busy; between clearing out Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and dealing with these loons, I'm staying extra busy. 9 indefinite bans so far today... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!! That is alot. Again thanks for the help. If there is anything I can do to help just let me know.--Dil 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet a another user has showed up. His name is Opal PI and he just posted a personal attack at Dils talk page. American Brit 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. I so love it when vandals make it easy for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User: SirChristdom has made a death threat on his user page. I guess these guys are unaware theyre pages are on my watchlist and I know theyre every move. LOL. American Brit 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I saw that. It inspired me to make a "Collection of threats" section on my userpage (a companion to Collection of insults. I'm still putting it together. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That threat really shows he is 100% Christian (as he claimed on his user page) dont it?. American Brit 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I can re-ban him for hypocrisy, I'd do it in a heartbeat. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikititan has also made a threat. EVula how does it feel knowing you will soon be food for piegons and dogs?. LOL. I wonder if the mental assylum now lets patients use computers. Seems like dont it? American Brit 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

My thanks to you for restoring the William Sledd article. I can't believe that other admin re-deleted it just because a homophobic vandal added some bloody tag! lol...Anyway, THANK YOU!! I was pretty down on Wikipedia last night because of it, you've somewhat restored my faith that there are competent admins. :o) --Arislan 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the admins that has deleted the article in the past (and then restored it when presented new evidence). I've got patrolling the article as a high-priority item on my To Do list, so I'll be able to restore any similar deletions much faster hopefully. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know you deleted it at first, but you are competent and understand the rules. It's the ones who pull a deletion out of their hats without even checking that tick me off. I think you know by now but many homophobes have vandalised that particular article in the past, the same people who vandalise William's comment section in Youtube. Adding undue tags is just another form of silliness. Thank you again! :o) --Arislan 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)