Hosta

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

Hi EVula, I'd like you to meet Nikilada, who is our Dean's Fellow for Wikipedia this semester. She'll be helping us to host a new Edit-A-Thon this fall, probably focused on translation between Wikipedia language editions. We're hoping that we can draw on your expertise again. Plus free pizza! How is Nov. 1st in your calendar? Clifford Anderson (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at "free pizza"...
November 1st works for me. What time? I've got an event that night, but I won't need to be there until 6 or so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We're thinking that we'd run the edit-a-thon from 10:00 to 4:00 p.m. Nikilada is confirming the date with the Special Collections folk. We'll let you know when we have the details shored up. Look forward to seeing you again! Clifford Anderson (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Someone really has it out for my Mary Helen Clark page. It's been marked for deletion as a COI and they called it "advertising". Is there anything more I need to be doing/can do to satisfy the people flagging it? Thanks! Nikilada (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd seen that guy bitching about the article's existence elsewhere. I've removed the prod (he also tried having it speedily deleted and that got shot down by someone else); if he wants the article deleted so badly, he'll have to take it to Articles for Deletion, which will get many more eyeballs on the article than prodding it (which may help address the notability concerns; I'm not entirely sure how to fix those, and I'm too busy to give it too much attention at the moment). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula, just a note that the autochecked usergroup does not include the skipcaptcha access. I moved the recent users you had given this to to confirmed which does. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. I was on my iPad and it was a pain in the ass to try to find what flag granted that; it's been a loooooooooong time since I've used Special:UserRights for anything other than the sysop bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula, sorry for joining in, but I was reading this and thought why not. You can find the rights listed at Special:ListGroupRights, or for easy remembering Special:UserGroupRights. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! I knew there was a page, and I'm sure I could have looked for it pretty quickly had I been on my regular computer, but trying to find it very quickly while on my iPad just wasn't going to happen. (and no need to apologize for joining the conversation; I'm always happy to have something on this page that is more than just Signpost notices.) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure on what grounds you removed this proposed deletion? Your edit summary said "assume a bit of good faith here", but I'm confused as to what policy your removal of this proposed deletion falls under. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "assume good faith" bit is trying to delete it as a G11. That's ridiculous; the article came out of an edit-a-thon at a university. We should be happy about having universities working with Wikipedia to get their materials onto our servers. (that the person is potentially non-notable is reasonable, though I still think trying to delete it as soon as it was created was jumping the gun quite a bit) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EVula, we're contemplating holding another editathon at the Nashville Public Library on the civil rights movement in Nashville/Tennessee. Pharos thinks we may be able to hold the event in conjunction with the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture at NYPL. Tentatively, the date is scheduled for Saturday, February 7th. Any chance you might be able to take part? Amwilliams15 is helping to coordinate events at the Nashville Public Library. Let us know. Thanks!! Clifford Anderson (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I'd definitely be interested in getting involved, and I've got nothing scheduled that day until that evening. Elonka recently moved to town as well, I wonder if she'd be interested. (which reminds me that I really need to check my Facebook messages more readily than my talk page messages...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! By all means, let's include anyone who's interested. I'll keep you posted as plans develop. Clifford Anderson (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful!! This will be our first editathon at NPL so we would love as many experienced editors as possible! So glad you are interested in participating! Amwilliams15 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are confirmed for February 7th from 11-4. Check out the meetup page for more information. Would you be willing to help with the training for new users? Amwilliams15 (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for helping out this weekend! It was great to meet you and be a part of such a fun event!! I look forward to more in the future. I'm on to you and checked my user page first thing when I got in this morning :)Amwilliams15 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I have no clue what you're talking about... *whistles nonchalantly*
Saturday was an absolute blast. I'm definitely looking forward to more Wikipedia events at the library. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're gearing up for a superheroes themed editathon at NPL in June as part of our summer reading initiative. We're thinking June 13th. We would love it if you were there. Or lets talk dates. Librarian Bryan (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely interested! I might be super-groggy that morning since I'll have a show the night before, but I'm still game to help out. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! And thank you! I've created a meetup page for the event: Superheroes Edit-a-thon. The plan is to follow the same format as one Amwilliams15 hosted. It will be a tie-in with Summer Challenge, aka summer reading, at the library. Librarian Bryan (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any bureaucratic edits in forever and a day, but that's partially because there's so little to do these days... (But hey, I still maintain the mailing list! I doubt that matters to anyone, though.)

The discussion looks like it has died down and so ultimately nothing is going to get done because, well, this is Wikipedia, of course it did. I almost feel like throwing my deadminship proposal back out there; that'd address the apparent concern over shitty-but-can't-take-to-ArbCom admins, plus give us bureaucrats something to do again. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea I've been rolling around in my head. If you read between the lines, something similar would be a follow-on after implementing the kind of check-and-balance for the team. I'll be sure to let you know when I get to workshopping that. –xeno^talk 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I edit your proposal page directly? You can revert when I'm done if you don't like it. If you'd rather I not, I can fork it. –xeno^talk 19:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind? (feel free to make changes, I'm just curious) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier if I just show you. –xeno^talk 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Excellent changes all around. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on moving forward? –xeno^talk 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but that's partially because I've got too much on my plate off-wiki to really give this much thought at the moment. Maybe post about it at WT:RfA to get a feel for what people think of it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment to read the RfA in its entirety, but I'll try to respond by tonight if it is still open. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xeno^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...is there even enough stuff for us to do these days? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do photo requests in the Nashville area and other parts of Tennessee? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]