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.

Questions

These redirects, Trunks dragon ball and Trunks dragon ball z, are they potentially useful? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, being unfamiliar with the whole Dragon Ball mythos, but they appear to be "lazy search redirects", which I personally consider mildly valid. They certainly aren't hurting anything, at worst. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if this was a personal attack. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The grammar is bad enough that it's reasonable to assume that the "12 year old" comment was in reference to themselves. :) I'd assume good faith on this one, if only because it's not actually worth the energy to chastise them over; sometimes a light touch is better than a heavy-handed one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to remove an uncivil comment from the DBZ talk page but the user keeps re-adding it [1], [2]. It may or may not be targeted to anyone but the tone is quite innapropiate IMHO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The comment is mildly antagonistic, yes, but removing the comment repeatedly can be seen as antagonistic from his point of view. I'd let it stand; sometimes the best reaction to borderline incivility is to ignore it (sometimes people are dicks just to get a rise out of people; by refusing the get riled up, you effectively cut them off at the legs. I'm not saying that that's the situation here; just some general advice). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete this image? I don't think source information is able to be placed long after the image's creation, but I could be wrong. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed this thread. (See above) {^_^} Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sure did. I'm just so popular to talk to, it causes problems... :)
There's no time limit on when a source can be provided, so it's fine to just leave the image alone for now. No need to hurry it right along; it might find a home in the next seven days. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quelle thespian

I do comedy, and stand-up when I get over my nervousness (things where I'm doing other people's words, I haven't the slightest nervousness about, and my own words *written*, I'm very confident about, but *performing my words* always gives me a huge bout of 'what if they don't LIKE ME?' worries). Thespian was, also, a shapeshifting superhero character I played about 23 years ago in a roleplaying game, and is a near-anagram of my real name. I've used it online since I was 13 or 14, and first logged into bbses ;-) --Thespian 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As badly as I flubbed a good portion of my lines at tonight's rehearsal, I'm afraid I can't relate to the "I'm fine with other peoples' words" bit. :) Cool that you do standup, though; it's something I admire, but I just don't think I can do it (I'm a funny guy, but I generally need something to work with; the thought of just standing there actively trying to be funny is mildly horrifying).
Interesting how sometimes names can come from one place and stick with you for a very long time... "EVula" was a name of a computer disk (yes, I named them... I was young) that just happened to be sitting next to me when I first signed onto the website for Escape Velocity back in 97 or 98. I've been using it everywhere ever since. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently did a 'Your Ideal Profession' test, and it told me, #3 of so, that I should be a 'stand-up comic'. I've been working with a friend, a professional comic, to see if I can possibly work that into an opening for my next little attempt; "I'm here...because the computer told me to be." --Thespian 06:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you could do a little stand-up routine the next time Wikimania is state-side. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

rollback

I am reverting your edits, you put an oppose in the support section. Anyway I was formatting the comments not changing them, you have also removed my oppose. The sunder king 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I meant by my !vote; it was a joke, which I consider fairly obvious. Regardless of that fact, you de-indented several discussion comments, which artificially inflated the opposition section. If you revert my edits, I will revert you right back and block; you're disrupting the RfA process with your misguided editing. (cross-posted comment on both users' talk pages to ensure it is seen)EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an accident! sorry I miscalcuated I never meant to rig the RFA or anything, but you can't threaten to block me, read WP:BLOCK by the way I've been on the project for months and made thousands of edits, I am no vandal. The sunder king 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I threatened the block because you're disrupting Wikipedia, which is covered in the block policy. It's one thing to make a mistake, but it's another to willingly make that mistake again after being warned by an administrator not to do it again. Your revert came before my warning, so I'm not blocking you, but you shouldn't format comments if you don't know what you're doing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, it was an accidental misreading of the RFA which lead to me making a misleading edit by accident, I am an experienced editor and I do not wish to disrupt. Anyway I've stopped. The sunder king 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That you stopped is my only concern. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Somethings wrong, why did you put a "oppose" in the support section, and why did riana support the RFA saying "shameless troll"??? and other people are reporting for silly reasons, what's going on? The sunder king 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Riana and I both know Gurch well enough to crack jokes with him (well, Riana probably does; I don't know Gurch personally, but I enjoy making jokes on RfAs on occasion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

changed to support now, I relised he can be a big help ;). The sunder king 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Groovy! I'm glad you reconsidered; I personally think he'll be a great help to the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh...

"(→User-reported - manually removing Evilblood4, who has already been blocked (suck it, bot!))". Into The Fray ^T/C 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just gotta celebrate any time you can beat the bots. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

For a reason which wasn't very smart on my part (I was being lazy, and didn't want to do something I should have done). I fixed it. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, groovy. I've certainly done stuff like that before, so I've got no room to talk. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Nazi userbox

Hi. I'd like to respond here to your comments from the THA Rfa. First, I'm not quite clear why you are ridiculing people's concerns. ("pathetically ridiculous") Sure, I hear that you yourself don't take it seriously. However, because some voters are concerned that THA did not take the issue seriously enough, or at least deal w/it efficiently, doesn't it undermine THA's candidacy for one of THA's main allies to not take it seriously too? I can imagine your frustration, esp since THA may well deserve to be an admin. However, for what it's worth, from my perspective your comment is to the candidate's detriment.

Second, I'm curious about your own userbox. You've drawn attention to it twice. Since some people are offended by it, and consider it inappropriate for an admin, do you plan to delete it or under what circumstances you would do so? (I've worded it this awkward way because I'm uncertain that I would request this myself.) Thanks for your consideration. Pls reply on my Talk, if you don't mind. HG | Talk 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've drawn attention to it twice because everyone has said stuff along the lines of "I can't believe you'd run for adminship with that box", when I did the very thing with no problem whatsoever. Even well after becoming an admin (coming up on a full year), that userbox has never once been an issue. That is why I have such a flippant attitude towards the whole situation; it's a little thing that's gotten blown waaaay out of proportion (in my opinion). Opposing because of THA's reaction to the situation? That's different. But to the userbox's mere existence, and the vague and nebulous idea that somehow it will make THA a less effective administrator? Absurd.

As for whether I'd take it down, I'd have to say pretty adamantly that I would not, unless I was presented with evidence that it disrupted the project. If I had such evidence, I would take it down immediately. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you draw (between THA's reaction and the presence of the userbox) is important, but I didn't sense that it wasn't drawn so clearly in your recent comment. I gather that your second answer suggests a fairly high hurdle. That is, presumably something could be considered offensive or uncivil without disrupting the project, right? In any case, thanks for your straightforward responses. HG | Talk 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is a rather high hurdle, as I can't imagine an example of a single userbox hidden away in someone's userspace disrupting the project. I think the clearest distinction between my use of the box and THA's is that his was front-and-center on his userpage, while mine was on a subpage, and is surrounded by other grammar-related boxes (if it were on, say, my interests or personal subpages, I could more readily understand confusion over its purpose).

At most, I think that, once he removed the box, the whole thing should have been a dead issue. Concerns that it would be misconstrued by new users are perfectly valid, in my opinion, but to question THA's judgement for having ever used the box is blowing the problem out of proportion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and, for what it's worth, I agree that context/placement is relevant. Be well. HG | Talk 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Riana

Geez. You know you've been on Wikipedia for way too long when even those you thought you'd see around forever start to go. :-( Thanks for telling me. I hope you're not thinking of leaving too. Best regards, Húsönd 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think about it from time to time, but I think I'm in it for the long haul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, on your oppose of Hdt

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider your oppose on Hdt's RfA. You call it "knee-jerk" and I would agree. His contribs throw up no real flags, and he seems a very friendly and civil fellow. As adminship is "no big deal", and this good editor is right on the line (68-70% right now), I'd respecfully ask you to reconsider your oppose. I've appreciated your contributions to other RfA's, and I know that you do not just canvas them with opposes. As such, I felt like you might be open to reconsidering your vote, based upon the fact that Hdt DID wait nearly 3 months this time, racked up 3000+ edits in the process, and is in general not a problem editor. Also, for the record, I am not a Wikifriend of his or anything like that. I'd never interacted with him prior to this RfA. I'm just an editor of the project, concerned with the fact that good editors are often being denied adminship. Thanks in advance for any time you spend taking another look at your vote on Hdt83. K. Scott Bailey 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 mentions that being open to constructive criticism is an important trait in an administrator (which is absolutely true). However, I see absolutely no evidence that Hdt83 paid any mind to the numerous calls that he not self-nominate again. To quote myself from his previous RfAs:

• (Neutral - RfA #2) "3. I'm sorry, I just can't quite get behind this RfA. Barely any time has passed since your last RfA, and while I have no doubt that someone can immediately turn their attentions to their own limitations, only time can tell if their attempts will actually bear fruit [emphasis added for this conversation]; without this time having elapsed, the complaints in your first RfA still stand (in my opinion). The canvassing bit that tennisman pointed out is also mildly disturbing; unless you've worked with that editor in a training capacity (for example, Husond provided me solid advice in my editor review, and so I dropped him a note when my RfA took flight), I don't think it was proper. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)"
• (Oppose - RfA #3) "19. You're waiting about a month between RfAs, despite the fact that numerous people have mentioned that you need to give it more time. You really need to be more receptive to feedback, especially when you volunteer yourself for it (as happens in an RfA). Stop self-nominating every month [emphasis added for this conversation], and concentrate on improving the project for a couple of months before coming back here. At this point, you're just pissing away any good will that you're building up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"

Several other editors also voiced their opinions that Hdt83 shouldn't self-nominate again, but instead wait for someone to nominate him. While yes, he did go out and keep working on the project like I suggested, that's also something that's to be expected from any RfA candidate, and so isn't particularly extraordinary. Fact is, he's being given sound advice from multiple users (and I would consider advice on adminship from admins something that any candidate should pay close attention to), and he's (apparently) disregarding it. I don't consider that a particularly constructive stance to take, and so I've opposed the RfA, and don't feel the need to retract my !vote. I do appreciate you dropping me a line, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that Newyorkbrad has weighed in in favor of my view that recommending someone not self-nom (in direct contradiction to RfA instructions) is not good advice, are you any more willing to reconsider your opposition to Hdt? He clearly listened to the "wait a few months" advice (which was spot on, IMO), and did not listen to the "advice" to not self-nominate (which was clearly not good advice, also IMO). Whether or not you choose to at least consider the fact that your opposition was perhaps ill-founded, as I stated before, my respect for you remains. I'll just put a bit less weight into your opinions on RfA, that's all! :) Regards, K. Scott Bailey 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not good advce is totally subjective - in this case I happen to agree with EVula, because in my opinion the flurry of self noms is a possible indication of power hunger. I find it interesting that he can't wait and find someone who is willing to nominate him. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a clear assumption of bad faith. How can you possibly ascertain that a "flurry" of self-noms indicates "power hunger" in Hdt, especially given the fact that self-noms are not only allowed, but encouraged? That simply does not follow logically. I'm trying hard to understand how doing something that is encouraged (or, in the converse, advising someone AGAINST doing something that is encouraged) by the actual RfA instructions constitutes evidence of "power hunger" but I just don't see it. K. Scott Bailey 02:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, would you consider advice to report someone to AN/I for vandalism "good advice"? If not, why, if you believe that "good adv[i]ce is totally subjective"? Good advice, is actually not always subjective. In many cases, it's either good (follow the instructions at a given page, for example) or bad (ignore the instructions at a given page, for example). K. Scott Bailey 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] I'm not going to bother breaking my response down into a point-by-point comment, as I haven't the time to dedicate to such a response. I will say this, though: I don't care what the RfA instructions are. I personally feel that the candidate shouldn't self-nominate anymore, and it is an opinion (apparently) shared by numerous other editors. The candidate ignored that advice, which he is certainly within his right to do so; likewise, I'm within my right to oppose based on that fact. The instructions aren't some gold-plated, handed-down-from-on-high list of requirements; they are general recommendations, and editors are more than welcome to subject candidates to their own requirements, even if they run contrary to the official instructions (to a certain degree, of course; someone who opposed any editor with under 20k edits wouldn't be taken seriously). If I had seen Hdt comment on why he was self-nomming yet again, I might have reconsidered my !vote, but he completely glossed over it (with a statement that made the glossing over stand out all the more, in my mind).

I'm beginning to tire of being told that my advice is bad advice; you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, and I'm willing to let it drop as a case of "we have to agree to disagree", but you won't let it drop. I honestly couldn't care less about the whole situation; if I were a 'crat, I'd probably be a lot more invested in it, but I'm not, so I'm not. I honestly would have forgotten about the whole damn thing if not for the repeated discussion about it here and on WP:BN. While I admire your dedication to what you believe is the good of the project, you're starting to become a little too hostile for my taste (saying that the 'crats aren't bold enough just because they disagree with you [3] is ridiculous). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instructons are there for a reason. Advice to ignore them is what then, if not "bad"? Nothing in Hdt's contribs raises any redflags. Nothing. The only real problem I see anyone cite is the self-nom, wanting-it-to-bad issue. I'm sorry if you take offense at it, but it's incontrovertible that opposing on the basis of self-nomming is bad form. And for the record, if you look at Hdt's talk page, he's had offers of noms come in already, based mainly on the fact that so many people piled on about the spurious self-nom nonissue. I would be interested to see what would happen if someone put him up for RfA next week. What would be the oppose rationale then? K. Scott Bailey 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instructions aren't the Word of God; RfA participants are well within "the bounds" (for lack of a better term) to ask a candidate to not self-nominate. If he's had offers for nominations, then it's all the more ridiculous that he self-nominated, and shows poor judgement on his part (considering the fact that the self-nom was an issue last time).

If he were put up next week, I'd oppose for the exact same reason I did this time: a lack of evidence that the candidate can accept constructive criticism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The offers came in after he was voted down by you all, as a sort of protest of the perceived ridiculousness of it all, I would guess. And, for the record, RfA participants are not "within the bounds" to tell someone not to self-nom. That's akin to saying it's okay to instruct an editor to report vandals to AN/I or RFPP. It's forbidding him from doing something explicitly allowed by the instructions, and as such is spurious. I don't believe you told Hdt that in bad faith. I just believe you were wrong in giving him that advice, and now you refuse to rethink your position. That's fine, and we can agree to disagree. K. Scott Bailey 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument about vandal-reporting to ANI or RFPP is silly; those pages have specific purposes, just as vandal reporting has a specific place for it to be done (even though I've seen plenty of "please kill this account" reports made directly on admin talk pages). Telling someone to report elsewhere disrupts numerous processes; asking a user to not-self nominate is different. If Hdt had said anything about the whole self-nom issue, and explained why he decided to just up and self-nom yet again, I might have reconsidered my argument. But he didn't. No amount of wikilawyering is going to convince me that I was wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as there are instructions (and they're not the "word of God" either) at the top of AN/I, AIV, et al, so there are at the top of RfA. We can't treat one set as optional and the other as mandatory. Oh, and are you trying to escalate? Accusing me of wiki-lawyering is certainly not helpful. Especially after I had basically said "agree to disagree." K. Scott Bailey 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, conversation done, I don't care anymore. I'm tired of this whole thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Haha, well it's the thought that counts, right? :) Actually, odd that you left me a message right as I was looking at your userpage. I saw a pretty blatant impersonator of yours that wasn't listed in the impersonators section, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. GlassCobra 07:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm aware of that one, but I'd left it off on purpose. *shrug* It was originally to not have my real name right out there, but considering I link to my IMDB listing (and I've been addressed by my real name by vandals before), it's a moot point. Thanks for adding it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad, I should have figured you left it out on purpose, my fault. By the by, seeing as you do know me from various other intarnetz places (EV-Nova.net, Ambrosia, your old forums), do I qualify for inclusion in the "folks that I know from elsewhere" section? :) GlassCobra 07:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I... but... wait, what's the username that I would know you best by? I just did a search for "GlassCobra" on the ASW boards but got nothing... at any rate, if you're a former Lair dweller (gee, I really should update the site sometime...), by all means, add yourself. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't go by this name anywhere but here. On all those other places, I just went by Guest. Not really sure why, but I'm sure it drove everyone crazy. Heh. :) GlassCobra 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that name I do recognize. Yes yes, you definitely deserve to add yourself (just make sure you add the comment that you're Guest; I'm likely to forget, and go "why the hell is GlassCobra listed?" :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, all done! Thanks very kindly for the vote on my RfA, and also congrats on hitting 22k! Personally, I can't even comprehend having that many... GlassCobra 08:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone had told me that, after correcting a typo on my (then) girlfriend's high school's Wikipedia article would have led to twenty-two thousand en.wp edits, adminship on three wikis (coming up on the 1-year mark here on en.wp), and accounts on more than 160 different WMF wikis (not to mention editing in roughly 90 different languages), I would have told them that they were crazy. Instead, I just tell people that I'm crazy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, sometimes I still have a tough time wrapping my brain around even my 5,000, but...anyhow, I'm glad we've got really dedicated (if a tad crazy) people like you around! I've got to get a little shuteye, as I've got work tomorrow, but nice catching up with you, and feel free to drop me a line anytime! GlassCobra 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hey buddy! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and if you ever need backup or second opinions, I'm your guy! By the way, I don't know if you've noticed it yet or not, but I left a little joke in your userpage. :P GlassCobra 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, nice. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, damn, I shouldn't have told you. Then I could have seen how long it took you to figure it out. :P GlassCobra 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert and block. :) Acalamari 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I always have fun busting vandals. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bunches!

Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I don't have time so I'll make it quick

I don't have much time. I didn't read my failed unblock all the way, so I missed where it said that I shouldn't put another one on. I'll also didn't read the reason for the failed unblock, and now that I have, my talk page got protected. I need you to unblock TimySmidge soon, please, and unprotect my talk page as well. They blocked TimmySmidge, and soon they'll block this username too. If you can unblock me, I have a new idea for Wikipedia that will change it forever. Don't worry, it's not against the rules. --TimySmidge 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to do either; you're welcome to share your idea here instead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No that won't work. It's a big idea (and a surprise). --TimySmdige 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't negotiating. You can post it here or nowhere; I'm not unblocking your account(s) or unprotecting your talk page without good reason, and a vague promise of "a big idea" isn't particularly compelling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Then please help me. My good reason is:

I am 12 years old. I am a stupid idiot and I wasn't thinking when I made those socks. As a child, a deserve second chances. If unblocked, I will work on making Wikipedia a better place, rather than contributing to the badness. I am sorry for what I have done and I repent. --TimySmidge 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Age is no excuse; as I recall, we've got an administrator that is 13 or so. Besides, all this happened roughly a month ago; by your own admission, you're still "a stupid idiot". What evidence do I have that you're actually going to be productive? None. I tell you to post your grand idea here, and you steadfastly refuse. That's not particularly compelling. I consider myself as being extremely generous in not blocking your current account, though my patience is beginning to wear thin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll tell you. It's called a Discussion Group. A something where a group of users get together and talk about anything without having to move article to article. I was going to create it and invite you, Sesshomaru, Nemu, TTN, Therequiembellishere, DBZRocks, Minervamoon, Lucky Mitch, BetaCommand, Viridae, Carnildo, and PeterVogel (so we can get to the bottom of his suspected sockpuppetry). It's a great idea, but I want to do it as TimySmidge. TimySmidge 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgdimsYmit (talk • contribs)

We already have that: it's called the talk page. If the discussion encompasses several editors, you just drop them a note on their user talk pages to check out the centralized discussion (on either the article talk page or, sometimes, the talk page of the appropriate WikiProject). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww, you don't like it? Can I create it anyway? I still want to do it. It's kinda different from a talk page. Also, are kid users common for Wikipedia? --EgdimsYmit 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

↑ Interesting ↑

You have much more patience than I do. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are times when I am patient to a fault. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...uh, okay. If Remembrance Day is November 11, why is this being posted on the 6th? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this came a little early, but its kind of a tradition we have in Canada, or at least in my part of Canada, to begin handing out poppies a few days before the actual day of remembrance. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty. In the states, Veterans Day is a largely ho-hum holiday (compared to Memorial Day, which is largely the same thing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worse (or better) in the UK - poppies (plastic charity badge-like things) are common sight before Halloween (and Christmas fetes in the first weekend of November, and no I'm not joking). Still, I do wear one as a sign of respect. Will ^(talk) 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing Christmas stuff hanging up in some places for the past three to four weeks; it seems to start earlier and earlier every year. I think if I see a Christmas tree somewhere in July, I'm going to snap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for saying that too rudely. I have had relatives who have died in both World War II and Vietnam and I was raised very American. I just took your comment wrong and I am sorry for that. I just think highly of Veterans Day but I do disagree with the h-hum statment. It means a lot to some people that day Neville 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your Sig

Well, for my sig, I simply placed the template: '''{{subst:User2|Malinaccier}}'''. I guess it is really long in raw code. I'll remove the edit count, and go with your suggestion. Thanks a lot, I guess that must have really been bugging some people =]. {{SUBST::User2|Malinaccier}} 01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow that tinkering really messed up my sig. Malinaccier (talk • contribs 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean it "messed up" the sig? Aside from missing the closing ")", it looks fine to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34

zOMG! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

/me renames EVula to...

TallyBot. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

~*Giggle*~ That's a good name! :o) Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...that's actually pretty creepy. I was thinking that very same thought just before popping into the shower, and lo and behold, it's here on my talk page when I come out.

Obviously, my shower is some sort of thought-transference device. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

~*Ariel breaks out her tin foil hat...*~ Ariel♥Gold 03:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Showers don't interfere with your circuitry at all? That's some bot :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Riana, what he won't tell us is that what was coming out of the shower head was actually WD-40, to loosen up all those chips and boards, and keep him running in primo condition. :P And probably some magic potion that keeps him (unlike other robots/computers :P) from crashing on a regular basis… :/ —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's important to stay lubed-up... er, wait, that came out wrong... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin

You're the second person this past month to suggest such a notion -- see here. :) Maybe I'll reconsider down the road, but I feel that my fortitude is in straight-up contributions to film articles. I appreciate the thought, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope so, though I can certainly understand your trepidation. In the year I've been an admin, I've had a major namespace shift away from my previous gnome work on Mortal Kombat articles and more towards general editing in the project namespace (not to mention an increase in activity on wikis other than en.wp).

I'd hate to see you pare back your outstanding film contributions, but I'd also love to see you be able to bust heads when vandals attempt to ruin your wonderful articles. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rfa

Thanks for shutting my RFA down. I actually didn't even care if I got adminship at the time or not, I knew I wasn't ready anyway.

Redmarkviolinist 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Darth Maul External Links

Why do you say that link doesn't add anything of value? Did you look at the page it linked to? It brings in fan videos, youtube videos, fan art, flickr images, fan fiction, external links, and will have exclusive video from lucas. I think you should reconsider.

Mhanagan 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But none of it is actually worthwhile. External links should, in theory, help to create a better understanding of the topic for the reader. That link doesn't.

However, you're more than welcome to ask about whether it should be added or not on the talk page; if consensus determines that it does add to the article, I'd be more than happy to add it back in. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it does add a lot to "fill out" the experience of Darth Maul in that it has photos and fan art and videos as well as discussion which the other sites linked do not provide and are unique to the Yahoo site. I posted on the talk page for the article as well.