User talk:EVula/Jan-Mar 2011

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 January 2011 and March 2011.

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

Hello, EVula/Jan-Mar 2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks; I'm largely inactive (aside from random wikignoming work), and have no desire to join a wikiproject at this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to, but there's no way in hell I can commit to anything else wiki-related at this point; I'm stretched too thin as it is, given all my real-life commitments. Bummer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, totally understandable.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, EVula, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Logan Talk Contributions 02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...five years? Holy shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you on the compromise. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash and explain to User:Burpelson AFB that his conduct towards me was completely unacceptable, especially this last edit. Frankly, I'd like to see a block for such blatant incivility, but I understand that it might not be in the cards because some people might call that punitive. I'd like to keep this out of the official venues for now, because I think that a one-on-one would be more effective (he did cite feeling attacked while lashing out at me). bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped him a short talk page message. If he's feeling attacked, I don't want to bust out an official warning, but I definitely let him know that it wasn't okay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you Mr. Admin/Crat/Oversight/Erase-me-from-existance-if-I-piss-you-off. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, best title ever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider use of Pending Changes on R. L. Stine, given the ongoing RfC on use of PC, and the notice regarding its use, and...well, the fact that there is no consensus for using it, beyond a trial period of 2 months which was from June 2010. Please see WP:PCRFC and feel free to comment there.  Chzz  ►  23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when Stine himself is complaining about errors in his article [1][2][3][4], something needs to happen. Given that he was talking about continuing to correct errors on the article[5], pending changes seemed to be a more viable option: it would allow him to continue making corrections where needed, while protecting the article from continued vandalism. (I've since been in touch with him via email, and I've suggested that he register an account so that he can be properly identified)

I'm certainly not saying that I refuse to undo the protection, but I think using pending changes on the article is more productive than semi-protection at this point. WP:BLP is more important (in my eye) than honoring the Pending Changes trial; call it an invokement of WP:IAR, if you will, as this is the route that nets us a better article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your views. Certainly, protecting the person is #1 priority, and yes - if you think PC achieves that, IAR is quite valid here. Thanks for giving it consideration. Your opinions in the RfC would be very welcome.  Chzz  ►  01:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding my take on it. As for the RfC... I honestly wouldn't know where to begin with that. It's a total mess. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is PC enough, per [6] [7]? I mean, yes, PC stopped it, but, are we just flooding up the history? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on it. (And to show I'm not just a policy-wonk, I have been trying to help fix up that article too!)  Chzz  ►  18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. mentioned this to PeterSymonds (talk · contribs), and he blocked 212.125.211.122 (talk · contribs) (vandal-only and BLP related), but thought rangeblock was not appropriate. Oh...and as I type, I notice Courcelles has changed it to semi. So this discussion is moot. *shrug*  Chzz  ►  03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna drop Courcelles a note and direct him here; like I said, I'm not opposed to making it semi-protection, it was just my take on the situation at the exact moment, and I still feel like PC is the better way to go. (also, thanks for helping to improve the article!) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the instillation of PC, there were five instances of disruption/vandalism in 36 hours, not a good level at all for a BLP. We've seen this before, when WP becomes a topic of discussion about vandalism, we see tons of vandalism on the article concerned, and we've also seen PC doesn't work on high-traffic articles, as this one is for the time being. Courcelles 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was complaining about the errors in the article after he'd fixed them, and had cited that he'd had recurring issues with the article being incorrect (only one vandal edit is directly attributable to his comments). However, that only half-addresses the problem; the other half is that Stine himself was (somewhat) actively editing the article (for the purpose of removing the subtle vandalism), and semi-protection removes/removed that possibility entirely. Pending Changes addresses the total problem better than semi-protection. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick little point that is bugging me - and sorry, maybe it shouldn't be here, but; Stine's books have sold over 400 million copies - I flagged this some time ago, and it does have a ref, but I can't find that in the ref? I ask here instead of talk, as a sanity-check; am I missing something?  Chzz  ►  04:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EVula: Your edits 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 run 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. -- bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned this jerk for templating a regular. What a prick. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that asshole. Jeez, some people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, EVula, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Monterey Bay (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Since its not the anniversiary of your first edit, adminship, cratship, or oversight, so it must be your RL B-Day. I'll leave you with this pleasant quote! bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, birthday it was. :) Thanks for that excessively positive quote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EVula, I saw your post to the RfC regarding article creation. I was wondering if you had read Jalexander's post a few spots above yours, and if so, what you thought of it. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, but I have a different interpretation of the situation. So the community is shrinking... I hate to sound radical, but has anyone considered that perhaps that's a good thing? Plants need pruning, and a key quality in successful businesses is knowing how to trim fat to make the company more efficient; I think that's what needs to happen with Wikipedia. As we're a volunteer-driven project, we obviously can't just "fire" people (well, I mean, ArbCom technically can, but still), but I don't think that community entropy is the worst thing in the world.

Wikipedia (the concept) desperately wants to be open to any and everyone; I won't argue with that ideal, especially as a benefactor from that philosophy (if I hadn't been able to correct a typo on an article I'd looked up, I never would have gotten involved to the degree I have). But in reality, editing Wikipedia (as in, becoming a regular contributor, not the act of making an edit) is far from something that the average person ("anyone") is likely to do. I honestly think we're doing ourselves a disservice by trying to bend over backwards for people that just aren't a good fit for the project; square pegs go in square holes, round pegs go in round holes.

Brand new editors who don't have any grasp of what is required in a new article are more likely (in my opinion; I have no data to back this up) to be turned off by the project by having their work outright deleted in a flurry of acronyms and confusing policies than in being forced to wait a minimum amount of time before creating a new article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts. Judging by our terrible demographic spread, however, I don't think we're close to the point of needing pruning. It doesn't seem to me like we've significantly grown past the geek-appeal realm yet. If we aspire to be nothing more than a geek-oriented encyclopedia with a heavy bias towards an American male POV, then I would agree with you. But I really hope that one day Wikipedia will grow beyond that. If we close the doors behind us, it may never happen. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I haven't taken into consideration anything like demographics and whatnot; this is just my gut feeling, and I'm more than willing to assume that I'm basing that on incomplete information. These days, I'm largely tired of the bullshit found everywhere, which is why I've pretty much just gone back to my wikignoming ways. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]