user page // talk page

admin • opining • matrix • fun • awards

Archives

Current 2014: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q 2013: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2012: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2011: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2010: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2009: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2008: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2007: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2006: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q

Did you know that it's now been an entire year since you were made a bureaucrat? The work that you've done in that time makes me glad I nominated you. In addition, since you received the oversight tool in the time, you can now make your socks and friends admins too, and then hide the logs. :D Seriously though, congratulations, and keep up the good work. Acalamari 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been that long? I thought it was sooner than that. –xeno^talk 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arg, I did realize it had been a year, and I totally meant to drop you a line before you could do so for me. You're too thoughtful! :P

...that's a good idea about the socks thing, though... Hmm... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we had a lot of contact during the PirateSmackK episode I figured it'd be fair to let you know I'm quitting Wikipedia. I no longer believe this project has any chance of becoming a reliable, respected source of information. The endless vandalism and, more importantly, the community's refusal to battle it head-on (by introducing flagged revisions, BLP protection, etc) are slowly turning this project into a sad, unreliable joke. Also, when it comes to trolls and puppets there's enough Good Faith here to make Neville Chamberlain blush. I think the WP community is way too lenient when it comes to vandals, POV pushers, system gamers, puppets and trolls. That's their decision of course, fine, but it's a decision that I'm far from comfortable with and one that does this project a lot of harm. I feel I'm wasting my time reverting vandalism that can (and will) be restored the moment I turn my back. It's like hunting for burglars in the house of somebody who refuses to lock the door at night: an endless, pointless task. So thanks for your help and messages, and goodbye. Take care, Yintaɳ  23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear that, Yintan. I hope you come back someday to try to continue the good fight, but I'd totally understand if you didn't.

Regardless of what you do, I wish you the best in your endeavors. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:EVULA is kept [1] and WP:PEDRO is deleted [2]. I for one blame IRC, the Mafia, Black Ops and WP:JIMBO....oh...... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that sucks. Had I known about it, I would have participated in the RfD... the argument about cross-namespace redirects is total BS. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't care but I guess we still need a guideline on them - a project for another day! BTW thanks for the email the other day - most kind and my apologies for not replying. Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the email; you getting it was the important part, not me getting a reply. :) Hope all is well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am completely and totally opposed to cross namespace redirects. It's about time someone put Pedro in his place....Keeper | 76 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*giggle* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, bureaucrats can't take away our adminship once they give it to us, so we could just tag-team to delete EVula's redirect. Since he's a crat, he would lose his rights before we would because crats are supposed to be even more exemplary in their conduct than us admins are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I could rename you and then oversight any evidence that you're actually an administrator, then tell a steward that I accidently give you the sysop flag and have you demoted. Mwuhaha! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O_O HOLY SHIT! I forgot you had that! I take it back!!!! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute power corrupts rocks absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, on the other hand, I've blocked more than 9,500 people. Would take you a while to oversight all those block notices. Also, you'd likely crash the servers renaming someone with two hundred sixty-four thousand edits... Hmmm... I'm starting to like this "powah" thing... ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd better get started now then! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:O okay, okay. You win. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon once told one of his generals that he would like to plant trees along the side of the road to shade his soldiers while they marched. When the general replied that it would take years for the trees to grow, Napoleon remarked "well, then, we must get started immediately then!" bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thus the great J.delanoy/EVula peace treaty was signed.
You know, if you're so keen on tag-teaming someone, Keeper is right there... just sayin'. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Y'know, it's always surprised me that Wikipedia's coverage of "tag team" seems to only refer to one sense of the word.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely crossed my mind. Even Wiktionary doesn't have any "alternative" definitions. A sad day for those of us that enjoy grossly inappropriate innuendoes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other kind of innuendos? Keeper | 76 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What's wrong with those kind of tag teams? :D  iMatthew :  Chat  17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up again

Not to throw another log on the fire, but the issue is being raised again at RfD. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch tagged it for deletion under G7, so I've obliged him.
I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's talk page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name (such as mine or Pedro's) shouldn't. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really am confused by this whole thing, as I'd thought that consensus was already that RfB discretionary range is 80-85%. I've seen nothing come from this discussion that I didn't already know. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and process it as a withdrawn nom. Thank you. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my comment at WT:RFA made me chuckle. Thanks for lightening up my afternoon. Shereth 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always count on me to make a smartass comment and lighten the mood. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me mentions something about EVula's ass and "the mood". ;) لennavecia 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rawr. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...has been renamed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I'm not going to do it just yet, as there are some pretty major thunderstorms moving in and I might need to turn everything off soon... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it, the true motivation behind your RfDA proposal was to acquire desysop rights to get rid of all the other admins and crats, thus becoming the Emperor of Wikipedia. I haven't yet figured out how you intend to silence the Stewards before your coup, though... Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I'm found out. Now to oversight this so nobody else sees it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absurd accusation without a shred of proof, nobody will believe it. Hello my Emperor, when you have power absolute, please remember my meager services. Chillum 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw through it the moment he phrased one of the "concerns" with the RfDA system as "what if a bureaucrat goes rogue?" - that way it conveniently sidesteps the problem of him being a rogue bureaucrat already! ~ mazca ^talk 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought it was a nice segue into the last item on the page, which is, in my opinion, the most important item. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You completely neglected to mention WP:EVULA, especially where it applies in that last item. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got e-mail! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet; been a busy day, and have only been able to do wiki stuff while on hold on the phone. Oy vey. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ;D Icestorm815 • Talk 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got another email. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one gets a quicker response because it's oversight related. Sorry, Icestorm. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you space the dashes in the lead, per MOS:DASH? Should be uncontroversial. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was really bugging me... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain; that's how I felt about the caption periods. There's still two left that I want to tweak, but one of them is more of a rewrite; given the furious editing happening, though, I'll just wait so I'm not contributing to the EC orgy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art will tackle them, hopefully. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm holding off on any other edits until he gets done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request you step down from bureaucratship and adminship immediately. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn, I can't find the meta page to do that because I'm so tired... oh well! EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget his oversight too, otherwise this conversation may suddenly have never happened. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having oversight but not adminship would be hilarious. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The adminship part could come very easily :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's how 'cratship works. I'll rename your back if you'll promote mine... or something. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd still have a few adminsocks lying around, surely? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, what type of 'crat do you take me for? That was the whole reason I wanted the 'crat and oversight flags. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Pardon the interruption EVula, but I had a favor to ask. May I send you an email? I have no problem with you posting it once you read it, but some things are not adding up here for me. I'd hate to publicly embarrass myself by asking questions that I don't "need to know" the answers for. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a followup to your post at 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) NW (Talk) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the thread, but thanks for the talkback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently sent you an email regarding oversight. Please check and reply, thanks;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email has been acting up on this computer (both in sending and receiving), so it'll have to wait until I'm back on my main machine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how long would that be?SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In planning. لennavecia 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother f... if it was just a week later, I'd be 100% there. However, Shakespeare in the Park runs thru September 7, and I'm house managing; the most I could do is hang out until about 4 (at the latest, most likely) before I'd need to haul ass over to Centennial Park.

Of course, the show could be part of the meetup (it'll be The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged), which is absolutely hilarious), but I certainly wouldn't be offended if nobody wanted that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much are tickets? I'll go. So, you'd be able to hang out for like, Sunday lunch? لennavecia 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more questions. What time is the show and do you know anything about this place: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g55229-d434828-Reviews-Jackson_s_Bar_and_Bistro-Nashville_Tennessee.html ? Thanks. لennavecia 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets are free. I'd be available during the day on both Saturday and Sunday (shows are at 7:30, pre-show starts at 6:30). I've never been to Jackson's, but there are tons of places around town; Blackstone and Bosco's both come to mind (and are both microbreweries), though the former is actually not too far from Centennial Park. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville. Updated. And sign it... I'm lonely over there. :( لennavecia 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, plus I let Kaldari know about it (since he's the only other Nashvillian that I know of 'round here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained how you will be able to attend Saturday's dinner on my talk page. لennavecia 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It recently occurred to me to get the local timezones of various administrators that I've dealt with and know I can work with in the future, and to concentrate that information in one page instead of my memory. Because the relevant page is linked from my userpage, anyone will be able to find a list of the most useful admins. It so happens that you're the latest victim. If you feel like revealing your timezone (not exactly the most dangerous secret in the world), you can reply here, here or here (the latter by actually adding yourself to the table). If you object, simply reply here or here (be sure to specify if you're objecting to the concept itself, or just the timezone). Because this is shameless questionspam, thanks in advance for whatever option you choose. —LedgendGamer 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just discovered that WP:HAU exists. —LedgendGamer 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...okay! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was this about? WP:HOTTIE can have a See also section but this one can't? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies outside of article space. If you look at the history of WP:HOTTIE, you'll see that there was, at one point, a list of people that aren't hotties, but they were removed. It was also a complaint on the RfD page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed fairly clear-cut to me, yeah - having a page on a widely-read encyclopedia saying certain well-known people are hot is perhaps a little unprofessional but largely harmless; having a page on the same encyclopedia stating that certain well known people are effectively 'fucking ugly' is another thing entirely. ~ mazca ^talk 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure calling someone "ugly" or even "fucking ugly" is tantamount to such actual BLP vio content added to Bio articles such as "so and so murdered so and so"^{[citation needed]}. Calling someone ugly just simply isn't a BLP vio, especially when sourced by, well, their own face. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allstar, I like your work here but given your recent issues I'd recommend you ease off on this. EVula's edit was totally correct. Your understanding of libel seems about as good as your previous understanding of copyright - i.e. weak to non-existent. Let it go please.Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the smiley face and the "source by own face" joke.. calm down. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro seems perfectly calm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Pedro is perfectly calm. Allstar, if you start describing people as "ugly" on a public website you are subject to libel laws (possibly slander due to some week interpretations of "spoken" in many areas but it ammounts to a similar outcome) - trust me you really are. Smileys may be all good and well but they are in the middle of this conversation which is peripheral to the main issue so irrelevant. The simple fact is you have libeled those people. EVula removed it. Just let it drop and move on - and please think a bit more before posting stuff like that on WP. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further review this is an unatributed rip-off from WP:HOTTIE - efectively another copy-vio as it does not follow the GFDL realese the original words were created under. Please DB-U1 - now. You really need to wise up on GFDL and copyvio Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at when it was created. It's not new. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not understand this do you? Replied on your talk Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, whining about the "no-fun brigade" is pretty immature. I fail to see how it's the collective fault of the administrators that you don't understand the difference between WP:HOTTIE and WP:FUGLY (and their respective "see also" lists). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed I received my first post-block angry personal threat [3]! It makes me feel so important :D ~ mazca ^talk 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so proud of you! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved, but I was browsing on this page before leaving a message (which is oddly enough just idiosyncratic for me), and I decided to read that. I found it quite hilarious that not only is he advertising an illegal, crude game clone but he actually had the nerve to flame a respected member of the community. It's people like that who make Wikipedia a cesspit, but luckily, it's the editors and admins who level the playing field. The New Squeaky (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you used to semi-protect the Freakazoid! article a few years ago. Do you think you could do it again? It's still getting Candlejack-vandalism. --Zarel (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've asked for this previously at RFPP, and it always gets declined, and it always gets vandalized again, and it's always the same stupid vandalism. Sigh... — Gavia immer (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:D Thanks. I've asked for this at RFPP before, and it was semi-protected for about a week before it went back to its regular vandalism. I really didn't want to go and deal with the templates again for another RFPP, so I figured asking an admin who was previously involved in the page and knew what I was talking about would be easier. --Zarel (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal favourite edit summary of the day: [4] and it's been a long day, so thank you! :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it was a good one - I think DMacks ended up beating you with his followup "resolved" statement though, haha. ~ mazca ^talk 09:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was so inspired, I put a new quote on my userpage. [5] :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Nice. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the heads-up. — Dan | talk 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For working my user name change, I'm glad to be the original now. -SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 01:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, happy to help. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing my username all these countless times that I've gotten tired of it! I'm glad to know that there's someone efficient and responsible behind the desk when I put in the request! The New Squeaky (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the kind words. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:EVULA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:EVULA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BlueSquadronRaven 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I was actually informed this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking the discussion over about the closure the other day and came to a small conclusion that if you (me) vote oppose then it is my duty to support my position as the supports were said to be counted if they were only a signature, so...I was just having a little look and feel as to how to do this, it is not easy to question a vote, to do it is almost like starting from a position of bad faith. Anyway, just some thought and comments, there is another one just further up, support 219 User:PrincessofLlyr newbie since may 2009 113 edits never voted on wikipedia before and jumps up and votes for JC for crat. I also would like to point that vote out as well> what do you think? I comment here and ask you only for a little advice. And find it hard that votes like these which are in all good faith weak are automatically counted and votes from the oppose section are discounted from perhaps long term experienced users because they haven't expressed themselves well. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So say so on the RfA. {{spa}} is the perfect template for tagging true single purpose accounts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! It's not that I think that they are a spa, just that they are very new to the site and the workings of the authoritative posts here. I would say this is relative to the value of the vote. What would you say? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Someone that is new can make a more compelling argument than someone who has been here for years. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can agree with that. Thanks for commenting. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey EVula, sent you an email about an OTRS ticket. Let me know if you get it or not. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firing off a response now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pzrmd claimed here that he has emailed you with information about his previous username. Without revealing the name itself or any identifying details, can you confirm that a) he has in fact done so, and b) the previous account was in good standing? (no recent blocks or pattern of disruption). → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your issue, Mr. Officious. Pzrmd2 (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your only warning to refrain from personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're quite sad, I have to say =). Pzrmd (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you somehow think that clearing the warning off your talkpage means you can't get blocked? → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Pzrmd (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then refactor the above attacks. → ROUX ₪ 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, knock it the hell off. Roux, calling you officious was hardly a personal attack, but Pzrmd, you could have simply (and very accurately) pointed out that it wasn't his issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone abusing RTV/fresh start is everyone's business. → ROUX ₪ 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your faith in my ability to understand that. I'm blown away, really. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be insulting. You said "...accurately) pointed out that it wasn't his issue." I disagreed and said why. It wasn't an attack on you. → ROUX ₪ 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was accurate because you didn't need to insert yourself into the situation; if it was an abuse of RTV, I would take care of it. (as it is, I still haven't gotten a chance to read the email yet) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email, thanks Pzrmd2 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out for the evening, but I'll take a look at it when I get up tomorrow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is absolutely nothing offensive about "Supreme Allah" to any religion. Allah means God, nothing else.

Many people have Allah: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Allah&group=&limit=50

And many people have God: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=God&group=&limit=50

Please reconsider. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, many of the people on both your lists are blocked, presumably for the same reason... ;) The offensive part isn't using the term "Supreme Allah" by itself, but rather using it to refer to a particular user. --Zarel (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of users on both lists are not blocked. There is nothing offensive about it and since many others have the word "Allah" and "God", I should also be allowed to have it specially since no other have the name I have requested.

For example, here we have "God Emperor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:God_Emperor --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but "God" is a slightly more neutral term... It can refer to any deity, even one in a pantheon. It could even mean "extremely powerful", as in "godlike". In any case, it's probably better for me to let EVula reply... --Zarel (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what "Allah" means, but I have concerns that it would end up being offensive to someone; they would interpret your username to suggest that you yourself are the Supreme Allah. The fact that the other usernames exist does not dissuade me from my concerns (especially given that several of those usernames have either been blocked or have never been used). Simply pick another username please. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, I beg you, please, I have thought about it for a long time, this is a name I really want to have. The fact that many others have been permitted usernames with both "Allah" and "God" shows that you should let me have this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to change my mind; I really do believe it to be a bad idea. Furthermore, fellow 'crat Kingturtle and CHU clerk Juliancolton both agree with me (see WP:CHU#Supreme Deliciousness → Supreme Allah) that this would be a Bad Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to approving Supreme Deliciousness's name change to Supreme Allah. This would be grossly offensive and tantamount to blasphemy! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see [6]. The name change was denied at CHU, but user has adjusted his/her signature code so that it reflects the denied name. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's changed it back. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EVula. You have new messages at UKER's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] shows what might be a problem with folks following a user around. Collect (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the user has stated they don't plan on editing again, I don't think it's much of a problem. If nothing else, there's not a whole lot I can do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least it shows the real problem, I fear. Collect (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were having trouble with your drama abstinance.^[1] I thought a little motivation might help:

Cheers! bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not too much, I just can't stay in the article namespace (the point of the dramaout) that much; I'm simply not a heavy-duty content contributor. I'll wikignome the hell out of an article, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided it would do me good to combine avoiding drama with experiencing Wikipedia as an unregistered user... I've made about 300 gnomey edits as various IP addresses this week. This includes receiving two vandalism warnings at various times for entirely innocent edits! Not having my watchlist available does wonders for keeping me away from the drama boards. ~ mazca ^talk 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've got a non-admin sock that I edit from when I feel like looking at everything thru new eyes. It's a worthwhile experience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't do that. The sweet siren call of anonymity would make it too tempting to vandalize the pages of users I don't like.^[2] I recommend heavy use of the "random article" function for wikignoming. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacted by the unit historian for 4th Supply Battalion, who has given me some information and an image to use for that article. However, it's not published anywhere but in the unit's records, which are not generally accessable to anyone not at the unit's headquarters. Would I be able to forward the email to OTRS and cite the ticket as a source? Or perhaps simply just cite "unit historian"? It would be a shame to be unable to use this history. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be better off asking someone else; I'd hardly consider myself to be experienced with OTRS sourcing. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a second (unrelated) question for ya. Since you seem to know much more code than I do, maybe you can help me with my signature. I want to shorten it up a tad, and one of my goals is to have the subscript and superscript in the same vertical alignment (i.e., one above the other). I know it's possible, because Template:PhysicsParticle does it somehow for the nuclide templates, but the code is too complex for me to decipher it. Do you think you could help? bahamut0013^words_deeds 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... yeah, looking at the template, that's pretty crazy complex. Looking at the HTML output, though, to try to mimic the code in a sig would be impossible, as the output would be too long for the sig field (you could get away with using a user subpage subst:ing, but the resulting output would still be crazy long for a signature).

I took a look at your sig's code; I was able to do a bit of tag consolidation, but managed something similar to what you were looking for. Went from 320 characters to 312.

Original

bahamut0013^words_deeds

'''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#918151;color:#000;">bahamut0013</span>]]'''[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sup><small>words</small></sup></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sub><small>deeds</small></sub></span>]]

Revised

bahamut0013^words_deeds

'''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#918151;color:#000">bahamut0013</span>]]'''<span style="background:#D2B48C"><small>[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<sup style="color:#000;margin-left:3px">words</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-20px">deeds</sub>]]</small></span>

Pretty happy that I was able to add in more code and still reduce the character count. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:D you=The Man^TM! Mucho gracias, senor! bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Check your email. Pzrmd (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also emailed you. Prodego ^talk 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you had seen my response to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Image_captions_can_be_too_wide —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but didn't have anything spectacular to say. Good job with the overflow bit of code, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me another favor? I might be out of my mind, but I think the editnotice installed on List of notable United States Marines isn't right: I can see it when not editing the page, and twice when I am editing the page. I'm not sure what's causing me to see this behavior. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone transcluded the editnotice directly onto the page. Silly someone.[8] EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh... I didn't get it either. See, I'd also thought you had to transclude it for it to work. Silly me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they work automagically. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with The Shrew - one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. I love the BBC version with a typically manic John Cleese as Petruchio (sp?)

When you have a mo, could you return to Wikipedia:Changing_username#FjBot_.E2.86.92_KtBot? I can't quite remember the circumstances. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up.

The production is being done in a 60s/70s style. Petruchio's wedding "outfit" is spectacular... I wish the Nashville meetup could see it, but alas, it closes next weekend. C'est la vie. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EVula - what can you tell me about this, if anything? Doing my best to get the backlog reduced a little! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula. How do I archive my talk page? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different ways. Help:Archiving a talk page has everything you need. Personally, I prefer the cut-and-paste method; nobody needs to have (or likely cares about) my archived pages on their watchlists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted my merge of Fatboy Slim to Norman Cook, leaving the comment "wrong way to do this". Can I ask you why you think it was wrong? I followed procedures described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Text_dump_merger

And in case you're wondering, the reason I did a merge and not a move is because there was already a Norman Cook article (although it was just a redirect to Fatboy Slim). Scientivore (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct solution here is to move Fatboy Slim to Norman Cook, not to simply copy and paste; when you do that, the history is destroyed. Do not undo the revert again; I'm more than willing to do the move (as an administrator, I can automatically delete the existing redirect in the move), but I'd like to see some consensus before doing so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a designated meetup place near Centennial so we can all roll into the amphitheatre and play MST3K! Btw, are tickets just "at the door", or can they be reserved ahead of time? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jackson's is the venue of choice for Sunday; it's not terribly far from Centennial Park, and food is always good. :) As for tickets, it's open seating; first come, first served, so there aren't any reservations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read through your /fun page .. and I have a "permission" I'd like you to grant to me. I would like to be able to reach through the screen, and smack a few folks about the cranial area for a bit. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "vigorous cranium smack" tool would certainly be a more useful and educational anti-vandal tool compared to "block". I'd like this permission too please! ~ mazca ^talk 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to have your bathrobe presentable. Lara 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to work hard enough to make myself presentable; now I have to have a clean bathrobe too? Sheesh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have one of the ladies in your harem get it ready. ;) Lara 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Har har har :P — Huntster (t @ c) 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preview fail. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Some serious pleasure reading, that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. :) I had a blast rewriting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the discussion about the orange and green links proposal. I have started a more modest proposal. Any comments would be greatly appreciated there. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, though I still don't think this should be anything other than a gadget. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I confirm the name change request (crengo--> cryngo). Thanks, Cryngo (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wanting you to confirm it on the Italian project, not here, but since you've got a unified account, that works too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula, are you really "teh shit"? X! seems to think so, but I'm not convinced? Am I missing something? If so, I really don't know what. Could you shed some light on this? Thanks.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  318° 59' 30" NET   21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you aren't sure about an inside joke, perhaps you should assume good faith and not revert it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm, by conversations that I've had with him, that EVula is indeed "teh shit". Javért ^☆ 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to assume bad faith, especially against an editor of X!'s stature, it bears a burden of guilt. I was just a little puzzled due to my lack of inside knowledge.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  166° 3' 0" NET   11:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was meant to be part of the fun, nothing serious!   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  216° 19' 45" NET   14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset, I'm just saying that reverting isn't the first course of action if you don't get an inside joke. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I may have let my vandalism reverting get the better of me! Thanks. I guess you really are always right! :D   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  257° 16' 30" NET   17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul, especially since you now know the error of your ways. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was good times hanging out with you, dude. How's your Pornopedia improvement drive going? XD You did indeed polish off like 8 slices of pizza, as promised. I'm sorry your Shakespeare show got shit-canned, I was looking forward to it. I was expecting it to eventually go on, since the rain had stopped at the hotel, but Nashville weather is apparently notoriously incongruous. Either way, you're a cool dude and it was nice to spend some time shooting the shit in person with some Righteous Wiki-Brothers in Arms. Keep on rockin' in the free world and hop into IRC once in awhile, ya? Bullzeye ^contribs 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the drive to set up a Pornopedia ArbCom eventually died off once I realized that I had plenty of other things to do. ;)

Totally had fun at the meetup. I do wish you guys could have seen it, but yeah, Nashville weather is really messed up. Now that the show's done, I should have a bit more time to pop into IRC (although certain parties already assume I'm there 24/7 anyway, but who the hell cares about them?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're "Chanserv" on IRC right? Dude, you're always there! Psh. Don't deny it. Lara 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching too much Buffy/Angel, "Wiki-sire". --Smashville^talk 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd be plowing thru that if I weren't busy trying to get caught up on Dollhouse first... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dollhouse is all that's left in my Whedon-superfecta. --Smashville^talk 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty fantastic. There are also more than a few repeat Whedonite actors; the most obvious is Eliza Dushku, but Amy Acker has a somewhat major recurring role, while Mark Sheppard has a minor recurring character and Alan Tudyk has a fantastic cameo (I couldn't stop laughing at his character for the first three-quarters of the episode). The actor playing the much-discussed Alpha is also a Whedon regular, but I don't want to spoil it (even though I knew who he was well before he was shown on screen). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at Amy Acker. --Smashville^talk 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another spoiler-free comment: her character, like many others, isn't what she appears to be at first. If you haven't caught up on the show by the time I actually come to Beer Church sometime (I know everyone in it, but haven't actually ever gone), I reserve to smack some sense into you. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:BEERCHURCHCABAL, I believe I have adequately pumped up certain BSG neophytes about their impending viewing of 33. --Smashville^talk 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The next step is for me to hop on over and get her my DVDs... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck on getting these or still enjoying the game too much to take time off to get them? :-) --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little of column A, a little of column B... actually, as much as I'd love to take some pictures of them, because of my recent move, I have no idea where my camera is. :( I could try taking a picture with my iPhone, but I doubt the quality would be that great... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, I'll post another request and see what happens first. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that about Ecoleetage and Pastor Theo? xD Pastor PirateSmackK (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image that was previously used was taken from the source of the meme, Toplessrobot. It's one of the first pictures, and has been featured as an example on other sites reporting the meme. Also, the new image is of a much lower quality. Would you have a problem with me restoring the old image? I had forgotten to remove the "some website" tag, as the website and author is now cleared up. Friginator (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've uploaded another, similar image that's of a higher quality, and is entirely my own work. I'm going to add that one to the article instead. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... so what was wrong with the one I uploaded? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you could look for the ticket regarding File:AMEX Opening Aug-2-2004.jpg, the same image was previously deleted for OTRS issues. The uploader is one of several SPAs that have been trying to edit the article Steve Brozak and put him in the best possible light. I'm not 100% convinced that good faith can be assumed any longer. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... sorry, I've been largely ignoring enwiki in favor of en.wikiquote, where I've had a couple of different things brewing. Do you still need me to look into this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I was actually gonna get worried if I didn't hear from you soon. I see that a template was added to the image by Panyd... I'm not sure if the OTRS volunteer knew about the previous version's deletion or not, or if that's an issue or not. I'm also not really sure where to go with the SPA and possibly COI issues either. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out after lunch. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [9]. Can you please respond, in the thread at my talk page, and also please leave a note for DuncanHill (talk · contribs) about his recent actions? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What kind of note? I see an admin using his tools to protect a page in his preferred form, and I see a failure of another admin to discuss (BRD ring any bells?), what is interesting is that once I started to try to discuss, Cirt chose to respond by protecting the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a reply on Cirt's talk page; I can shift the venue to wherever, it makes very little difference to me, but I'm amazed that tagging an indefinitely blocked editor as such is in any way, shape, or form a contentious issue. DH, I just don't see why you're so gung-ho to edit war over this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WH has been the target of a sustained and vicious campaign to remove him from WP, including malicious and false accusations of posting child pornography. I think that the rush to blank his userpage smells distinctly fishy in this context. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]