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.

Wdefcom

Don't do that. If you contest a deletion 1) Ask the deleter to reconsider 1) use DRV - which is currently debating the issue. Wheel warring defined by arbcom as 'reversing another administrator without discussion' may lead to your desysopping. Please consider reversing yourself to avoid further trouble.--Doc^g 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, I had no clue there was a DR going on for it; I saw a note about it on AN, and knew that speedily deleting a template that has survived multiple attempts at deletion through the proper channels was utter bullshit. CSD isn't a blank check for admins to get rid of whatever they happen to not like; he should have sent it through TfD again, not hid behind T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. But that's a matter for debate. There's seldom an urgency to restore anything, and if someone deletes something according to his view of what's obvious and then you restore it according to yours we get into a wheel war. Hence, the mantra arbcom gave us was never to reverse without discussion. DRV is discussing it - if you are right, they will reverse the deletion.--Doc^g 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean that the the world's very existence didn't hinge on whether the template was still around or not? I thought this was the most important thing to ever happen! ;)

I'm willing to say that I jumped the gun a bit by restoring, but I'm entirely unwilling to reverse my restoration; I truly believe that Thebainer abused his deletion ability by deleting the template simply because he didn't like it.

If the DR does indeed come to the conclusion that it should stay deleted, I'll consider that the next best thing to a successful TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but generally don't jump to reverse people just because you 'know' you are right. Bainer, no doubt, thought he was right. You are also right. I could 'know' I'm right by re-deleting it with 'don't undelete this out of process - wait for DRV' and then someone else might re-undelete it because they 'know' my redeletion was wrong. That might sound crazy, but it has happened many times before. That's why it is best to pause before reversing even an outrageous decision by another admin. Best to say 'I'm going to reverse this, unless anyone objects' and wait an hour or two. Or come to DRV and call for a 'speedy undelete'. If the deletion is as outrageous as you 'know' it is, you will quickly get support. Whilst bainer's deletion may be viewed as outrageous in the end, not having a template for a few hours, whilst we talk, is far less damaging than risking a righteous wheel-war. Anyway, peace.--Doc^g 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, this sort of thing isn't happening again. I learn rather quickly, albeit only after I get myself into trouble. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I get smacked for doing something not dissimilar.--Doc^g 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gooseman11111111111

You may want to protect the Talk page of this goof for awhile, as well (diff). - David Oberst 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User pwned Page protected. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou

I just trace back the fight between several editors and Misou (who was set up by some other editors in brilliant tactical manner, though very much detriment to the spirit of Wikipedia) and I just added to Misou's talk page that I find your "first block ever: one week" too harsh and an injustice not reflecting the circumstances of the incivility claimed. CSI LA 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree, and neither do several other admins on ANI. I'm not a big fan of "standard" blocks just because it is someone's first time being blocked. Sufficient warning has been given; if they hadn't been blocked before then, it was a leniency that the user failed to take advantage of. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see an admin stating anything there. I see the usual anti-Scientology front drumming up even their inactive editors to keep Misou from scraping at their conscience. This is rather amusing as it shows how much of a bureaucracy this is. Never mind, do what you want, but don't only do the popular things. CSI LA 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, whatever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fecal storm you mentioned on WP:ANI...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COFS indef blocked I noticed the same thing, but stayed out since my support would likely have advanced "their" suspicion of your motives. I just want to say you and I are not the only ones who think maybe there is more to this than first thought. At least two others think there is something there, Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS to see more. Anynobody 06:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

cite journal

"The request should be made on that page's talk page, or the talk page for the template itself."

Been sittin' there for over a year, it has. Not a hint that anyone's noticed. What would you suggest? If I worked out a fix could I submit it?--Randwolf 06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could ask again; sometimes a single request gets overlooked (fairly easy to happen). EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were already multiple requests there, but I've added one more. I've also reviewed the range of cite templates, looking for "publisher" and "location" parameters and posted a summary on Wikipedia talk:Citation templates--seems the templates are variable. Myself, I think I'm going to stick to Template:Citation in the future. Randwolf 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My addition to the admin noticeboard

Sorry didn't see that the newest were at the bottom -- it often works either way on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. Larry Dunn 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

user:captain-poison*im sorry you thought Autopyrotechnician was crap but im a beginner, and this was my first page, so please cut me some slack.

For naughty words in edit summaries... :P

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Majorly (hot!) 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, sooo sorry... I'll try to be more careful about it in the future. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DVB-RCS

Hi - I've removed the {{prod}} tag from the DVB-RCS article, as it doesn't appear to be a candidate for non contentious deletion - I've tagged it {{tone}} as it reads a little like a brochure. It may yet be a candidate for AfD - Tiswas^(t/c) 08:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, the overall tone of the article is very poor, and I definitely had my suspicions about it, considering that the only two contributors are almost single-purpose accounts in their contributions (plus the fact that very few articles link back to DVB-RCS). I'll leave it as-is for now; I just wanted another pair of eyes to check out the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Insults

Thanks for the advice on insults! That is part of what bothered me so much is I take them daily, why did I get so offended by these? Well, its all in the past now hopefully. Time to move forward! Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was personally able to shrug them off because they were just so outrageously over-the-top (I mean, really, you can only get so offended by "pussy sucking shit eater") and they were all by editors I'd blocked for other reasons. Insults (even if veiled slightly) from a regular editor cut to the bone much easier, as it is completely unexpected; the cut is all the worse when nothing is done about it.
Kicking ass and taking shit for that is just part of the job, though I wish it wasn't. But, if you're going to get flak no matter what, you might as well have a "damn the consequences" attitude about doing the right thing; that's what I do. :)
If you ever need someone to just bitch at to blow off some steam, you know where I am.EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
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. Ralbot 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Just dropping you a note

Thanks for pointing it out. I was going through dozens of articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from January 2007 and was careless with that article ... I checked back only a few revisions. I'll be more thorough in the future. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm terribly familiar with how easy it is to slip up. I've had to stop doing admin stuff past a certain time, as its obvious I shouldn't be deleting stuff when I'm tired. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/I sockpuppet case

Hey, thanks for blocking those socks of User:Billy Ego. I received this message shortly thereafter, and was wondering if I could ask you to block that account as well. May be one to keep an eye on. Thanks again for your speedy assistance. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you forgot this one and a hundred others. I live in a building with many students with an IP that is constantly in flux you bozos. I'm not a sockpuppet of Billy Ego but I am of Regulations. Billy Ego is apparently somebody in some other room or some other city in the same geographic region. I was wrongly blocked. Billy Ego said he was a fascist. I'm obviously the opposite of that..a libertarian. So why would I (Regulations) be a sockpuppet of Billy Ego? But of course you don't care. Do your mindless administration duties. But good luck finding the hundreds of other usernames coming from this region of the country and good luck finding the new username I will create immediately after you block this one. And good luck finding my other usernames I use in articles that you don't know to check since I edit new articles everyday. You are forcing people to create hundreds of sockpuppets to keep from being detected. Eventually Wikipedia will be all sockpuppets, if it's not already. Truent 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)