User talk:EVula/Apr-Jun 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EVula is an administrator. Weep for the future...
current status: in ur wiki, fixing ur interwikis
admin • contribs • matrix • fun • opining
EVula is dealing with real-life crap (see the links). I'll be around, but not doing much more than WP:CHU patrols.
Archive This is an archive of EVula's past discussions. You can't edit the contents of this page, so nyah.

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, head over to User talk:EVula instead.

This archive contains comments posted between April 2006 and June 2006.

Contents
Archive
Archives


Diablo II - Apology

Uh, I have no idea what the hell my edit was about. I think I must have gotten confused (too much editing in too many tabs). My bad. :) EVula 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. Nice of you to have bothered to apologize for a mistake like that, I don't see it happen too often around here... Cheers. :) VdSV9•♫ 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Griffin Technology listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Griffin Technology, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griffin Technology. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

School IP

I have noticed that you have been issuign warnings against this IP. Please note that if you cause IP to be blocked, you will prevent the many good faith wikipedia editors at Vanderbilt University Law School from contributing to the encyclopedia (most of these editors edit under usernames and will be blocked as collateral damage." 129.59.135.52 17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

False Vandalism Accusation

Re: my Suzanna Sherry erits, please do not make false accusations of vandalism (you called your edit of my removal of unsourced material "rvv"...as the wikipedia verifibility policy states, any editor may remove unsourced materia; Well, I removed unsourced material. How was that vandalism? Thanks. 129.59.135.52 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed every bit of easily verified content in that article. Hence, vandalism. EVula 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You need to look at the policy again. The burden is on the person adding the content to provide a reference. It was not my job to do your research for you -- the policy gave me the right to remove unsourced material and I exercised that right. This is not vandalism and thus your accusation of vandalism in this instance was a personal attack. 129.59.135.52 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends

Pretty mean of you to refuse to be friends with the decent and fun loving students of Vanderbilt University. 129.59.135.52 03:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Har har. EVula 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry

I wanted to apologize for my actions of the last couple days. I thought I was being funny, but I realize now that I took the whole thing too far. I guess I just got so into the back and forth that I crossed the line without realizing it -- I regret that now. You will notice that the impersonating usernames have been blocked -- as they deserved to be. Let me assure you, you do not need to worry about me causing any problems for you in the future. You have clearly made valuable contributions to the wiki and, judging by your myspace profile (which is where I got your name) and websites, you seem like a good guy. Again, I am sorry. And please feel confident that I will immediately cease my negative actions towards you. 129.59.135.52 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what? That's good enough for me. :) EVula 14:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

T2

Hi, re the "unbelievable plotpoint" [1] - fine, but as it stands it sounds like random editorialising. If we can attribute this view to somebody, with a source, that would be much better. Rd232 talk 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it could probably be worded a lot better. I'll see about tracking down the exact source of it (I'm fairly certain that Cameron himself notes the problem with that ending, but "fairly certain" isn't the same thing as verified). No promises on when, though; I'm pretty busy with shows for the rest of the month. EVula 15:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Knights of the Old Republic 2 - links

Hi, I'm sorry I made such mistakes linking from KOTOR2 infobox, I hope no harm was done and thanks for your advices. I'm going to edit the KOTOR2 page in the future, but I'll try to do it as you've recommended. If you'd like to consult or contact me regarding this game, I'll be happy. iLorbb 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

Re this. I think you've missed the entire point of WP:LIVING. It seems an arbitrary technicallity, to say what's not allowed on an article talk page, is allowed on a user page. For instance, its well accepted, to do remove text from AFD discussions (even blanking them entirely), even though that's not explicitly listed as one of the types of pages where its allowed. --Rob 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there needs to be a distinction made between someone arbitrarily editing a person's Wikipedia article to say "so and so is a whore," and a discussion (on a totally unrelated talk page) that happens to mention it.
Many distinctions are made for user pages vs. proper articles; just to name a few, I can add as many unverified statements as I want on my page, I can link to irrelevant articles, and I can use the first person (not to mention the fact that a non-notable person can have a user page, but not a "real" article). I don't see a (functional) difference between these exceptions and this particular situation. EVula 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand

You were kind enough to leave a note on my talk page as well as on the Last Stand page, so I absolutely take you at your word you were being facetious. Thank you for clarifying; that took fortitude, and it's appreciated.

Yeah, as with e-mail, subtlety and humorous comments are hard to do with vocal tone and facial expression. Believe me, there's not one of us here who hasn't learend that the hard way outselves! I'll place this on the Last Stand page as well, to confirm your good faith there. -- Tenebrae 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I love being a smart-ass (hence the note in my Infobox), but it doesn't always come across properly. In the online community that I'm used to posting to (where I've been a member for several years), everyone is used to it (after all, most of them are just as sarcastic as I am), so I often times fail to realize how everyone else can interpret what I said when operating almost anywhere else.
Thanks for vouching for me on the X3 talk page; hopefully we can all put this behind us, and focus on reverting loony fan-boy edits. :) EVula 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Passive Insults

On the vandy law discussion page, you accuse me of "passively" insulting you. Please provide evidence for this statement; in the absence of evidence, this strikes me as a personal attack. On another note, my reverts have been backed up by a legitimate wikipedia rationale (non compliance with notability standards) and have been supported to an extent by another user, so it is unclear why it should be so difficult for you to assume good faith. Justinpwilsonadvocate 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"this seems like a weasly solution". Not a direct insult, no, which is why I called it a passive insult; you are free to mistakingly interpret it as a personal attack and report me to the proper authorities as you see fit. I interpreted your removal of the majority of faculty members as a direct response to my opposing you on the Ebersole issue; given your relatively confined edit history (and username), it seems to me that you have a blatant bias in your edits, which erodes some of your credibility (in my personal opinion only). The fact that you've opted to post to my talk page rather than discuss Gopple's proposed compromise also furthers my opinion.
That said, I'm honestly interested in working towards improving the Vandy Law article; bickering about stupid shit is pointless and, frankly, I've got better things to do. EVula 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if you perceived an insult in my use of the term "weasly". I was not calling you a weasel. I was referring to wikipedia: avoid weasel words. As for my posting here, it struck me that your talk page -- not an article discussion -- was the proper place to respond to your accusations against me, as these accusations did not seem relevant to the article's content. And I will post my support for the proposed compromise right now, although I do not see why this is necessary as he is proposing that you do exacly what I initially proposed -- that is, listed professors require references that establish notability. Thanks. Justinpwilsonadvocate 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Friends

Look at that. I add myself to your friends list as a conciliatory gesture and you quickly delete me. Although we sometimes disagree about somethings, it seems sort of unnecesary and close to downright mean for you to rebuff this collegial gesture. Please reconsider. Justinpwilsonadvocate 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendship develops in time; I barely know you (as opposed to every other person on that list). I'm not opposed to being friends at some point, but right now, I don't feel comfortable calling you "friend" (nothing personal).
If it helps, I didn't consider your addition vandalism (I have had someone else add themselves to my friend list and did consider it vandalism). EVula 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. I personally equate friendship in this online context to require less of a bond than real-life friendship and as a valuable sign of goodwill in an ideally cooperative environment such as wikipedia. But to each his own. I certainly do hope to someday become worthy of inclusion on your friends list. Justinpwilsonadvocate 19:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU

That's ok, no harm done. You can comment on a case, you just want to avoid making it look like an "official" comment from the checkuser admins. Thatcher131 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. EVula 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy 3RR abuse

Thanks for your comment. You might wish to add your thoughts to this discussion at the admin noticeboard. --Centauri 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Spaceballs 2

Hi,

You can go ahead and redirect it if you like. I don't think that would be a huge problem. Here are the links from the deleted article:

- Richardcavell 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

I apologize for that last edit...I didn't realize the linked to article had been deleted. As for the other edits, I provided valid wikipedia justifications for every stance I took. I admit, I had a look at your contributions after our previous disagreement. But what is wrong with me speaking up if I happen to find that I have a viewpoint that contradicts yours? If you want to talk about spite, how about you rejecting my effort to let bygones be bygones and foster a sense of civility and collegiality between us by adding myself as one of your friends? Justinpwilsonadvocate 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy stating that I have to put you on my friends list. I've already stated my rationale over that, so complaining about it is pointless, and trying to equate it with being uncivil is laughable at best.
I don't have a problem with you contributing to the Wikipedia. Hell, I don't even have a problem with you arguing me. I do have a problem with the fact that every single edit (except one) of yours outside your usual "Ebersole"-pushing is on an article that I had just edited, and is usually the opposite of what I've done (either reverting my edit or voting contrary to what I voted). To me, that's akin to stalking my edits with the express purpose of disputing them. EVula 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I will stop keeping an eye on yout edits. I would hate for this to escalate. Justinpwilsonadvocate 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. EVula 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for dealing with me so fairly and objectively re Justin P. Wilson on the Vanderbilt Law article. It is clear that you are a nice person, which makes me feel even worse about giving you a hard time previously. Justinpwilsonadvocate 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you feel bad makes it all worthwhile. ;)
All seriousness aside, it doesn't matter what our past has been; I feel that Wilson is notable enough to warrant a mention as an alumni. An actual article... I'm on the fence, but definitely a mention on the VULS page. EVula 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)