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 Brit02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Brit06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Brit06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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) --Arislan06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) --Arislan07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, barely 4 minutes in, on my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I've already been putting the mop to good use in subtle ways and hope to prove your lack of reservation in how I will handle it is fully justified. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My story about the shared IP was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, I just didn't feel like responding, partly because I haven't really had the time to write up that much of a response. If you look at the edits since you first asked, you'll find that I've made a whopping 14 edits, most of them being fairly quick edits (more often than not involving admin-stuff, which I considered to be more important, considering the fluctuating higher than usual wikidefcon rating). Also take into account the fact that I was asleep for several hours and am currently at work. Throwing around claims of personal attacks is hardly the way to get me to respond in a positive manner to you. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To save EVula from having to deal with this, I'll just briefly say this: The two points you are curious about are both explained many times here, and as it has been said, User Check doesn't lie. Unless you accuse an Admin of lying, the dispute is over. ≈ The Haunted Angel(The Forest Whispers My Name)20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't consider this a personal attack or an opinion by me; but what I refer is the mention of the fact that despite your youth, you have two children and a wife and have been back and between two countries. A little farfetched it sounds, but I shall keep my opinion to myself on this matter. ≈ The Haunted Angel(The Forest Whispers My Name)00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I meant by "quirky personal history". I'm not saying it is bullshit, but mildly questionable stuff is magnified tenfold in light of a CheckUser that says you're the puppetmaster.
Look, if you honestly want to put this behind you, here's what you do: move on. Focus on contributing high-quality edits to Wikipedia, and people will care a bit less about this transgression (if nothing else, it is much easier to forget about something if you're not constantly reminding them of it). EVula// talk // ☯ //05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going off of this: Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. Through it a standard was implimented where all of the religious identity userboxes as well as most ideological ones came to use the words "interested in" rather than express belief in or membership of.
I was simply going through and standardizing all of the ones I saw. If this standard is obsolete then perhaps they should be changed back. -LambaJan23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(note: this section was improperly placed on the talk page and has been moved, Patstuarttalk|edits 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC))
Hi EVula, I had my page /Shinpseudo deleted, and while I won't be resubmitting it, I'd like to be able to obtain its text, as it took me awhile to write. Can you please be of assistance? Shinpseudo00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alrighty. I've dumped the text at User:Shinpseudo/deletion dump. You'd be better served keeping such original writings in a text file on your local computer, though, rather than putting it on Wikipedia (even in your user space). EVula// talk // ☯ //01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some editing to the William Sledd article. I'd like you to help find a good spot in the article for the "lunkhead" movie where you get mentioned, and convert it to a reference. Can you do it? --Arislan18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I might have time for it at some point this week. I'm actually starting up a couple of wikis of my own, so my Wikipedia time has been dwindling, but I'll see what I can do. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I must be getting really paranoid now. User:YoungOcelot. I said that I thought that Stralia was similar to me, what with the interest in Satanism and such, and now this dude shows up, with an interest in Metal Gear Solid (which I have) and with an account made what looks at a glance to be today, and he is already on American Brit's talk page. Just a heads up. ≈ The Haunted Angel(The Forest Whispers My Name)23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sure as hell don't blame you; there's no rationale reason for anyone's very first edit to be to the puppetmaster's talk page, unless it is the same person again. EVula// talk // ☯ //01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You were closing admin and correctly deleted this page. Thank you for improving Wikipedia. :) Will you also delete the 3 sub pages which were created from this page and were nominated at the same time?Obina23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the deletion log and cant find an article I wrote way back in 2004 or maybe 2005. It could have been 2003. Anyway then I.P.'s could create articles so I did. But it was deleted due to inaccuracies, which i later learned. The article was Alice Cleaver, about a Titanic passenger. I noticed while browsing you said you will provide copies of deleted articles. So if you have time could you find it for me. I would love to see one of my first ever edits. Golden User (Gold Hearted)04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Alice Cleaver is a bit of an odd article; I couldn't actually find a record of its deletion, either. I take it you started the article as an anon?
Yes, I'm well aware of the power of Google and equally aware of my university's campus directory. If I cared about either of those things, I might consider a change to my username. You definitely fail the creepyness test though. Would have been much better to give me a phone call to let me know you'd unmasked me as Bruce Wayne. Alwarren@ucsd.edu10:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I was just letting you know in case you weren't aware (moot point, but for the record, I didn't use Google at all). If you're aware and just don't care, that's fine, I was just trying to be helpful. The attitude isn't necessary. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the others I won't give you an untrue threat or insult (Those are very funny! ;^) ) Just a thank You for telling me that I couldn't use fair images on my Userpage, before I could've possibly gotten a warning. Thank You....Again! :^)§†SupaSoldier†§ Me FRAG You21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. It's one of those things that new users just simply don't know... hell, I had fair use images on my own userpage a good six months into my editing before anyone pointed it out to me. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...
If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.
To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:
Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.
Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.
That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.
When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."
And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."
Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.
Check it out: User:HBC archive builderbot/sandbox, I am using a diff engine to detect the removal of sections. Good idea, I hope this satisfies what you had in mind. Eventually it will detect when multiple names are closed at once, and will link to the last revision before it was removed, instead of the revision it was removed in. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at how fast it runs. I already have a routine that download the entire revision history of a page, caches it, then updates as needed, so if I ignore the time it takes to download new revisions, it only takes 3 seconds to parse the 2400+ diffs. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I really would have thought it would churn through for a lot longer. Seems like there are so many damn fast bots these days... EVula// talk // ☯ //20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask your opinion about something. Acalamari seems now to be going out looking for username violations. The latest one User:Theangryblackwoman has zero contribs. Its one thing if someone edits with a controversial username and causes offense or is likely to. But trying to preempt offense being caused seems less useful. Is he doing the right thing, or should he be encourage to slow down on the WP:RFCN reports? WJBscribe22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one in general misses the true mark of "this will offend someone". I've told him before that his efforts are appreciated ("it's the thought that counts"), but I do think he should cool his jets just a bit. Some of the feedback he's getting on RFCN may change his mood, though if he keeps frantically reporting users, I might drop him a line... EVula// talk // ☯ //22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just wanted someone with a bit more Wikipedia experience than me to keep an eye on it. At the moment the reports are causing more controversy than the usernames :-). WJBscribe22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...but if you're planning on fixing my shocking bad typing, you'll be kept busy. I can offer a third of everything I make editing Wikipedia (to date, that's approximately nothing, but think of all the dotcoms that took years to turn a profit) if you'd like the job full time. Anyway, should I be (a) surprised, (b) flattered, or (c) less paranoid? I don't remember anyone fixing something I wrote on a talk page before. Angus McLellan(Talk)20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I'm fixing your wikilinks strictly as an amateur; no stock swap is required. ;)
I'm just a hard-core wikignome who happened to have Berig's talk page still on my watchlist, so I just felt compelled to make the correction. I'd opt for (a), with a healthy portion of (c). EVula// talk // ☯ //20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Falling"? What are you talking about? Those things are totally legit.
Silly person. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting on seventeen different account transfers (apparently Niger has a very large royal family)... Man, I'm gonna be so rich... EVula// talk // ☯ //20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing that for me. I saw it reported to WP:AIV but wanted to make sure nobody else saw an issue. I am personally getting tired of people who jump on new users and tell the, to change there names like this which is currently at WP:RFCN. Do you know of a template that tells other to not bite newly registered people like that? Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, they're just getting worse!
There's no existing template that I know of, but I definitely think that we need to gently inform people that they need to do a bit more research (specifically of the policy) before reporting people. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I thought you were the previous editor. I'm just not comfortable with the GIPU going on a re-categorizing binge seemingly without any merit, and charging others with POV and OWN for reverting him. I brought up the matter on WikiProject Films' talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did a bit of poking around and realized the problem about ten seconds after posting to your talk page. Honest mistake, no worries. :-) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your past vote on a noticeboard[2] and would like you to reconsider. It seems you do not know the history of the board or the types of notices that are left on it. The board is used by multiple people and the notices on it are biased. I added some of those biased notices to the MfD so people can get an idea of how it told others how to vote, which is against meatpuppetry policy. If you would kindly review the information added and hopefully it will give you a fuller picture if you did not have one previously. --NuclearZer018:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said in my !vote, I have an AfD-tracking page myself, and consider it a perfectly viable project-related subpage.
Please see policies on bias notices and meat puppetry. Thank you and have a good day, I am glad you looked at the new information presented. --NuclearZer019:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a Future articles list of citations, and I just set up a Google Alert to receive news headlines with the keyword "mortal kombat" devastation (and these should be reliable sources that result). Would you want me to send any your way if I come across them in the future? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm gonna set one up for myself; thanks for info (I'd never noticed the alerts thing before) and the offer. This should make it easier to update the userspaced version of the Devastation article. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just copying and pasting doesn't work; you lose all the contributions that have been made, which are important for proper licensing of the edits (it's a fairly complicated issue about copyrights that, to be honest, I'm not 100% knowledgeable about; I just know it is frowned upon). Once the AfD has run its course, I'll take care of it; even if it is deleted from Wikipedia, I'm an admin, so I can just undelete it and then move it.
I am being accused of sock puppet of a long banned user. And I bet you had something to do with it. You area heartless bastard
who is so stupid you dont know the diffrence between your hands and feet. I bet you could nt walk until you were 19. You are ass head. I think you should stay away from me or I will hang you from my pine tree. DiamondUser01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah. I kinda got out of the habit of adding to it, what with as many threats and insults as I was getting... can't you just feel the love? :-) EVula// talk // ☯ //04:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like how creative people can get sometimes. Especially the YouTube video; that takes some real dedication, creativity, and hard work. It's always good to know that people are determined to improve the quality of threats and vandalism, not just "encyclopedic information". Oh, and thanks for the barnstar! ShadowHalo05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate irony of the YouTube video is that no other editor has done more than I have to protect the article's existence since I restored it (it was speedy-deleted and I restored it, plus I've reverted loads of vandalism). I'd sorta like to meet the guy at this point, but can't be bothered to make that sort of drive. ;-) EVula// talk // ☯ //05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I was breaking the links when I did that, and fully intended to return and fix the links later- I just didn't have time until now, and I see you've done that already. (Thanks, by the way.) Frankly, I was kind of annoyed at RoySmith for jump-starting the affair and listing them all separately with what clearly should have been a group proposal, as that would have saved everyone some work, but oh well. Normally, I'd agree that one shouldn't mess with a proposal unless willing to do all the paperwork associated though, but when I saw people reposting the same exact comment four times... SnowFire04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah, I hate seeing a slew of individual XfDs when they could just as easily be combined. Oh well, not everyone can be as sensible as you and I. ;-) EVula// talk // ☯ //04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be for keeping that page, but a user created it maybe to promote himself; I'm not really an expert in these matters, but I guess it is not very correct. Despite having agrred with that user's edits a few times, he wrote several sarcastic words against me at talk:Ambient music; he also tells that my edits are pov 'cos he worked for 2 decades for a radio in his country (likely the one in that article?) and knows all the truth on the subject. Regards.--Dr. Who16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently posted the following comment on my talk page:
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the List of minor Star Wars Sith characters page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not done any such thing and do not know what you are talking about. If you would actually take the time to examine my contributions page you would see in my edit history that my edit of the article was what appeared to me to be a spelling error and that is the only change I made. I missed the l on control on the first edit so I went back to change that so it was spelled correctly, forgetting to label the change as a minor edit. False accusations given without actually investigating is not only ignorant but it is also belittling. I hope that in the future you will save your criticisms for those who actually deserve it.
Hello - I'm curious as how your arrived at the conclusion that Robben Ford was non notable. Are you knowlegable about guitarists? Did you ask any guitarists? Did you Google him? (570,000 ghits) Did you look for him on YouTube? 132 results Meaning no disrepect, but your AfD is completely without merit. I urge you to withdraw it lest you tarnish your reputation as a musicologist any further. (yeah - I know you're an admin)
"players as respected as Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton have marveled at his work, and he appeared as a featured artist in Musician Magazine's "100 Greatest Guitarists of the 20th Century" issue. "bluesapalooza
I was going through all the photos that I'd deleted for having no copyright information, and Ford's two were among them.
I'm willing to admit that this was a mistake on my part, and certainly a shame on me for not at least doing a Google search. My bad, and I'm withdrawing the nomination. All the more reason for me to stop messing around Wikipedia when I really should just go to bed...
Well ..... his article, although unreferenced, clearly states his notability - and I have been having run-ins with a crew of deletionists who nominate AfD's using NN for axe-grinding reasons. Since he is clearly notable, I had to consider that this was the reason. Maybe he had come out with a strong pro, or anti-bush statement, for instance. If he recently had said something like "I think bush is a war criminal", I have no doubt that his article would have ended up being deleted by this well organized group'. I also noticed that the comment above mine was for an error on your part - AND noticed and considered that you take personal attacks pretty well - making light of them in a list. Sorry if I hurt your feelings - hopefully you will do less cleanup work when you're tired. Peace. - FAAFA20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because an article makes a claim to notability, doesn't mean that it is (a) true or (b) actually notable. I (unfairly) clumped Ford in with the several other articles that had un-tagged images that I cleared out last night (three of the articles the images were in were sent through AfD, while some of the others were speedily deleted); there wasn't any axe-grinding (I'm more of a knife person, myself), just poor judgement on my part.
(and just because he'd said something about Bush doesn't mean his article would be deleted; as you can see, when an article is mistakenly put up for deletion, everyone takes care of it rather quickly.)
Hey man. It's looking like we have a whole forum ready to start their jealousy war, and as we know that they are here to do nothing save disrupt Wikipedia is it possible to by-pass the whole process of adding template after template to each one's user page and instead enforce a "Zero-Tolerance" policy? As in, something along the lines of we put a comment next to the MKO link warning that should anyone make any disruptive edits they will be blocked straight away (or at the least, they will be given an "only warning" template)? I ask you this as you're an admin, and you know more of this stuff then me :) ≈ The Haunted Angel//The Forest Whispers My Name//22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I don't see that as an blatant attack username; I hate to say it, but to my exceedingly Westerner eyes, I can't distinguish between a potentially legitimate name and an attack one (I can easily read that as "heter" more than "hater"). I'm erring on the side of caution on this one, but I'm also going to check in on the editor's contributions; if they continue in their manner, I'll indefinitely block them.
I'm a Westerner myself, but it looked to me like an attack. I can see your viewpoint though, and I agree that your course of action is probably the best choice. And there's no need to apologise - I wasn't offended Readro01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind editing your closing comment on the AfD for Temple of the Jedi order (real); you said the AfD did not have a snowbals chance of passing, I am sure you meant of not passing. Thanks, Jerry lavoie01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"passing" as in "going through the AfD process and being kept". However, I've rephrased my statement ("of being kept"), which avoids any confusion. :-) EVula// talk // ☯ //01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block User:Dannyg3332? It seems pretty heavy handed, especially since he didn't really do anything wrong; he just didn't understand what kind of copyright information we need for images.--Peta03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He came across my radar because he was reported to AIV. While I completely agree that he doesn't understand Wikipedia's copyright policies for images, he has displayed a distinct inaptitude for actually communicating with other editors (his one content-based edit to his own talk page was heavily laden with contempt for the editors attempting to bring his edits in-line with our policies, while the others were him removing warnings, meaning that he is aware there is a problem, but isn't changing his edits accordingly).
I'm willing to concede that, perhaps, I was a bit too heavy-handed; I'd be willing to unblock him before the week-long block is scheduled to end if he notes that he's actually read up on the relevant policies. EVula// talk // ☯ //03:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, I've done the exact same thing before. No worries.
What I find really funny is that I was running around apparently just a few seconds behind you, trying to figure out what the hell was going on. Just when I thought I had it figured out, the one visible "edit" link was taking me to the wrong damn section because you'd already fixed it. Terribly confusing. :-) EVula// talk // ☯ //23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, even Basejumping pales in comparison to Parkour / Freerunning / Yamakasi -- which uses no chutes, no nets, no ropes, no bungee cords, no special equipment of any kind, you simply keep working at it until you're ready to jump from roof to roof of tall buildings. But I wouldn't want to try wiki-editing at the same time, even with a hand-held, since you need both hands free. (video 1)(video 2)(video 3)(video search) ... -- Ben01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible. There have been several good Bond movies, but this was the first one that I really felt like getting on DVD, and that opening scene is most definitely part of the reason why. EVula// talk // ☯ //06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the list of threats on your page, and most, if not all of them, were posted by American Brit and his alts. Man, you might have to make a new page if he doesn't get a life soon! --YoungOcelot06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, looking over that othercollection of threats, I see that you're scheduled to be hung from a pine tree, die in a bathtub, and be beaten to death with a crowbar; your poor abused corpse will then be hung from a flagpole (how patriotic!), hung from a oak tree for the piegons to eat (I presume they also eat the pies off windowsills so the harried cook turns around to find "Pie gone!"), hung in a meat locker (whatever's left of it... the piegons must be careless eaters), cut up and used as food for his dog (sloppy seconds?), be buried by Monday and soon in your grave, then stuffed (whatever's left now!) and buried at the garbage dump, then thrown into the ocean for fish-food (third meal of the day!), and finally sued. At least I think that may be the sequence; if he first threw you into the ocean for fish-food, it would be hard to salvage anything later for his dog or those hungry piegons. . . . You know what your problem is, EVula? You're overcommitted. -- Ben04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great that I'm so giving to the environment. Most people just become worm food; I'll become pigeon, dog, and fish food. Very ambitious of me. EVula// talk // ☯ //06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EVula, I want you to know that I am deeply, deeply disappointed, even heartbroken, to discover that my own dastardly threats apparently did not make the grade to be included on your user page, along with those by American Brit et (possible) al. I assure you, I tried my bestworst utmost. What does it take? Must I threaten to pelt you with cream puffs, throw warm soft sticky chocolate candies, or even *gasp* bring out the dreaded wet noodle? What does it take? I'm begging you! Don't be like Simon on American Idol, sneeringly demeaning my efforts! Give me some word of encouragement, of hope, of direction! At least indicate which of my threats above came the closest to intimidating you, to putting a shiver in your spine and a gurgling in your duodenum. Then I could extend my efforts in that direction, until I truly terrify you, though to what point or purpose I have not yet determined. Help a newbie at this craft attain some level of proficiency, and I'll get this "threat" business right yet! -- Ben09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not delete a page containing a personal essay or other content from the main article namespace without first posting a copy elsewhere (e.g., in a different namespace or on the meta), unless the content is simply vandalism" (from WP:DGFA). What's this all about? ShadowHalo04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'm not sure; I've never come across personal essays in the main article space... it looks like you're not the only one to notice that, as there's an (somewhat recent) post about it. Most likely, it won't be around much longer, so I think you can safely ignore it. :D EVula// talk // ☯ //05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I was worried that might be referring to normal articles. On another note, I spotted a vandal and was ready to block for the first time...when I realized I have no idea how long I'm supposed to block. Is there a guideline for how long to block the run-of-the mill vandal (at least for the first time)? ShadowHalo06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a rather strict attitude towards people who are obvious vandals; had I run across Justwantstohelp, I would have blocked them indefinitely (which someone else has done now) and slapped {{indefblock}} at the top of their talk page, with {{Vandalblock}} as their final message. There are, however, different schools of thought on this; I just happen to have absolutely zero tolerance for such edits, and have no problem coming down hard. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question you might be able to answar for me. Let's say an editor wants to copy and past from a web site to a Wikipedia article. Would that be allowed?See comment on my talk page and let me know if I am wrong. Thank you. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're talking about NAVFAC Edit... usually, copying and pasting from a website is a copyvio. However, if the website is a US government website, such content is in the public domain. EVula// talk // ☯ //02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, people are going to think we formed a cabal... But of course there is no cabal. Hmmm I cannot speak more of this now, meet me in the secret cabal meeting place(joke). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that might not be a bad idea. Let's see how this latest one turns out; it certainly does seem that he is enforcing a different version of WP:U than everyone else, though... EVula// talk // ☯ //21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. I'll see what I can do to help; I'm busy this week in the evenings, and already have a full plate (trying to save an article from AfD by hunting down sources, oh boy). I'll most certainly sign it, though; BC is out of control with his blocks. 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Can an admin take a look at this deleted user talkpage: [5]. Betacommand seems to have deleted it after WP:RFCN decided Alrite Darling U Gd? was a valid username. I presume it would have contained a comment that the username was actually acceptable and a welcome message (though obv. I can't check). Surely it should have been kept? WjBscribe21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi can you provide a copy of the content of this page? Public Transportation Safeguard It has been deleted and I am trying to get it up there again with good reasons. But just in case not, I still have what I wrote. Can you just stick it up in my talk page? THANKS IN ADVANCE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jingshen (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
ops sorry I forgot to sign, relatively new to wikipedia haha--Jingshen13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is time We Tubers had our own wiki. I am starting a wiki just on YouTube guys with more than 100 subscribers. I need ten good sysops. I've seen your contributions and that you realise there is a problem here on WP with too many mems being added in. We need to broaden the idea of wikis. I would like to invite you to participate. Please let me know by emailing me. frummer08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear EVula: Your edits, as in User:EVula#Collection of threats, have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you face the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. -- Ben09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears EVula isn't online at the present time, I'll give you a quick answer. The {{protected}} template doesn't protect an article, it instead lets readers know it is protected - the template that is added when it is protected. What you are looking for is here. This is where you request for a page to be protected and give your reasons (in this case it'd be semi-protected: only registered users can edit). Once it is protected, the Sysop who protected it would add the {{protected}} template to the article themselves. Hope this helps ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel//The Forest Whispers My Name//17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria
There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Sharks), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you've shown interest in this article, and its now up for deletion under notability, i thought you might like to weigh in Sherzo09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[en] As a dedicated Wikimedian, I don't limit myself to just one project or just one language.](/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg){kind=logo}
Readro 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
