Jump to content

User talk:EVula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EVula (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 29 January 2009 (→‎Template:User HD-DVD: context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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.

User Name

I'm just updating an old laptop (that was last online 467 days ago apparently) and it occured to me that EVULA is a perfect acronym for End Vindictive user licence agreements. Random comment of the day for ya :) Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's great. There was an acronym generator somewhere online back in the day that came up with a fantastic definition for my username, and now I can't remember what it was (or where the program is). Blast. EVula // talk // // 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock votes

Just wondering what your opinion was (since I was going to safest route) - in terms of voting, any sock is removed outright? Would it be sufficient to leave a notice in the edit summary? If it is (somehow) proven that they weren't a sock (if that is even possible) does the vote go back in? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is open to any member of the community in good standing -> blocked users are not in good standing -> blocked socks of blocked users are not allowed to participate in RfAs.
If it was a legitimate sock, there wouldn't be an issue. And, to be honest, it's a bit of a toss-up between indenting and removing outright; I favor the latter, as I think eliminating all evidence of a sock's presence goes a long way towards taking the fun out of socking (consider it an alternate interpretation of WP:DFTT).
Hypothetically speaking, yes, if User:Kristen Eriksen were to be unblocked due to faulty sockpuppet evidence, her !vote should be restored. I would be more than happy to reverse my own edit in such a situation. EVula // talk // // 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Multiple opinions are always useful in some of the more obscure situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to my sortable wikitables question at WP:VPT

Hi EVula, due to my inexperience with code and wikitables, I was hoping you could expound on the answer you provided at WP:VPT on the question of centreing columns in sortable wikitables. From what I could gather, your suggestion (.wikitable-center3 tbody tr td+td+td) and Blue-Haired Lawyer's addition (.col3-center) seem as though they may be a better option; needing style="text-align: center"| for each cell is cumbersome and will clutter the contents of the table more than I expected. Could you provide an example of how this would work and where the code would be used; perhaps (if it's easier for you) to the sortable wikitable already in place at List of female tennis players? Thank you very much, Maedin\talk 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd need to test it out in my userspace first, since I'd have to tweak my monobook files just to see if it'll work. I'll try to whip something up at some point today. EVula // talk // // 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you previously deleted this template under CSD:T1. I fail to see how it is divisive or inflammatory, and in any case CSD:T1 is (effectively) defunct now. I invite you to restore the template; otherwise I will list at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV it is, then. T1 being defunct now, almost two years since its deletion, makes very little difference; it was a very pointy userbox that doesn't serve any purpose but to say "fuck you." There's no way in hell that I'm undeleting it. EVula // talk // // 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*looks* Er...what does that say? GlassCobra 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AACS encryption key controversy. EVula // talk // // 17:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]