Jump to content

User talk:NoSeptember

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NoSeptember (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 7 May 2006 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admin's actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such presumption.



This user is an administrator.
This user is an administrator.
My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.

   This user has been a wikipedian for 20 years, 2 months and 9 days.

   This user has been an administrator for 19 years, 5 months and 8 days.




My current Wikipedia status:
Busy

may be absent for several days at a time and only moderately active when online.
  

  


 The NoSeptember Admin Project
Links to my admin pages and those of other users.
————————
NoSeptember (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) • A • H • N
On: Meta, Commons, Source, German, Test, Wiktionary, Wikinews
————————
Historique des changements de statut
Amministratori/Candidati/Elezioni



map

(reply to commons comment) thanks but doesnt Partisan mix of congressional delegations already have a map? -- Astrokey44|talk 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok Ive had a go with it - Image:109th US congress house of reps.PNG. tell me if thats ok because this is all very confusing to me! -- Astrokey44|talk 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks alot!, its something fun to do :) I'll keep a lookout at the featured article candidates. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

False positive

Thanks for your note about Helen Lakelly Hunt. At first I thought the article had been created as a copyvio, and I was going to delete all of it and substitute the copyvio template. When I checked the page history, though, I found that there was originally a stub before the copyvio was added. Therefore, following the instructions at WP:CP, I reverted to that version. That's why there was no copyvio template. I gather that's what triggered the bot's false positive. Would it be possible for the bot to read the edit summary and refrain from reverting an edit that has "copyvio" in the ES? Of course, a vandal could exploit this loophole, but I doubt that many vandals are that clever. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ditto, thanks for the message. Silly bot!  :) Proto||type 10:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here, here and here

RfA Alarm

I loved the little RfA Alarm on RfA Talk. I literally laughed out loud when I scrolled into it. I could actually hear it in my mind, and wow, it was obnoxious. Well played. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Tawkerbot2 FAQ Page

I've started a FAQ page @ User:Tawkerbot2/FAQ feel free to sprotect but please don't fully protect because I can't edit it then (if my RfA passes I might fully protect it later on).

If you have any common questions a newbie might have, I'm going to have a think about them, feel free to add them to the list and I'll answer them :) -- Tawker 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken those suggestions to my head and a couple other people copy edited it, it looks fairly useful now, maybe you could read it from the perspective of a reverted user, I really can't read it in that sense having all of the back end knowledge of the bot. -- Tawker 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think those words helped clear things up a bit, we dont' want to scare off the newbies, do you think a list of common good faith mistakes that trigger the bot would be of use or would that basically go against the WP:BEANS statement on "don't give potential vandals information on how to vandalize" -- Tawker 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do it at this time. It would encourage vandals to deliberately trigger the bot. NoSeptember talk 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

My RfA

Hi NoSeptember. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm & C:o

Made one for alerts also You can use :) →AzaToth 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Thanks

Thanks for finding my archives. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln-Kennedy

I apologize for the mistakes, I have not done this before. Thanks for the fixes. --LibraryLion 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is just one other one. Can you delete the article Denver's Spiderman as I should have titled it Denver Spiderman. The articles are exactly the same. Thanks. --LibraryLion 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are now merged. NoSeptember talk 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Wikibreak

You're not succeeding. --TantalumTelluride 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Federal Judicial Appointments

Appreciate the support. Love the pages, they're very valuable as a resource. I also expect plenty of activity in the upcoming months.--Smashingworth 03:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Just saw this

This is very well thought out. Well done you. (Leaping out of Wikibreak temporarily) -- Francs2000 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francs, I appreciate that. I only wish I could have people read it just as they are making those critical "leaving Wikipedia" decisions. NoSeptember talk 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just to clarify though I haven't left, I'm just taking a break. I have left being a b'crat though and I sit by that principle you have so eloquently laid out on that page in my resignation: I stepped down before I told anyone because I actually did mean it. -- Francs2000 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't talking about you, I know you are still around whenever you get the chance. I meant users in general, like those who "leave" after a stressful failed RfA. NoSeptember talk 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

A homeless person approaches you as you pick up an aluminum can that has a 5 cent return value on it and says, "Get off my property! This is my corner to collect cans and that can is mine!" and takes the can from you. How dare you correct the end time on someone's RfA! That's my territory you bumbling fool! Seriously, thanks for doing that. With as much controversy that is generated by early closings, it needs to be done. I just wish it were automatic. I'm glad someone besides me has taken up the task as well. --Durin 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I only do it if I notice it (I usually spot funny formats on the Dragonflight RfA summary). NoSeptember talk 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update tally please

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickCatal2 - as the closing bureaucrat, could you update the tally? - Richardcavell 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am not a bureaucrat. The candidate indicated his withdrawal in a statement posted at 15:52, and I removed it from WP:RFA and closed it out properly after his withdrawal. For the record, the last vote came after his withdrawal. We should not be so concerned about the exact count, rather we should just use the RfA as feedback to the candidate and information for the rest of us when his next RfA comes. There is no need to adjust the count. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INVITATION

You need to come join us in our efforts over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Speaking of records

AFIAK I now hold the follwoing

  1. Most questions on an RfA
  2. Newest user to reach WP:100 on an RfA
  3. Newest user in a long time to get promoted

Well, at least under my username anyways, though it would have been fun to see how I would have met up to Clown (though even my supports + opposes + neuterals didn't meet his totals) :) -- Tawker 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your first edit was in July 2005, you certainly aren't the newest. You may have the most questions, although there have been RfAs in the past with an explosion of questions (also about users with an unusual case such as yours). NoSeptember talk 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here, here and here

Clarence Thomas Article

The Clarence Thomas article is currently being discussed here regarding the insertion of some (potentially politically motivated) trivia. If you care to, could you take a look and comment? --Paul 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

My username

Thanks for the note. Yes I have and I think I've picked up the important ones. Redirects from the old name should handle the rest. If you know of any that should be changed, please mod on my behalf or let me know. Regards. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Re:Suspected Sockpuppet

It said on a message on a heading on my talk page:The log shows that none of the 3 accounts have been blocked. If you can't edit it would suggest that a blocked user has been using your IP address. (See Blocking policy). I think I know the user that user who used my IP Adress. He was User:Michael Simpson. General Eisenhower 21:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Thanks

Both for honest feedback, and for cleaning up after my template goof on the Master Jay nomination -- clearly my cut-and-paste skills failed me there, and I'm glad you were willing to clean up the mess. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. NoSeptember talk 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't mind my continuing the discussion of the 70-80 / 75-80 question here. I can't find any discussion of Freestyle's promotion (I clicked through a bunch of archives...perhaps I didn't hit the right onw), but I read the discussion of Luigi. Frankly I'm a little disappointed at how little communication there seemed to be from the crat in that case, although I suppose everyone has their own style. Anyhow, in that discussion, a number of users indicated that they thought anything inside 70-80 was in bureaucrat discretion...another of others favor 75, as you noted. Do you know if this discussion was continued to a conclusion anywhere? Personally I would be very loath to promote below 75 unless the objections seemed largely without merit (and even then I'd be hesitant), but certainly if the community feels that's inappropriate I wouldn't want to do so. Anyway, any pointer you could give me to a more conclusive discussion (and any pointer to a discussion of why freestyle was promoted) would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have specific arguments in favor of not promoting below 75, I'd love to hear them so that I can take that perspective into account. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75% appears to become a more firm line as time goes on. When reading old discussions, keep this is mind. Essjay's RfB was the most recent big discussion of the topic. I accept 75% because I see widespread support for it, and the rarity of anyone passing below 75% reinforces that. I could live with a lower standard than 75% (and the 90% for bureaucrat promotions), but I don't see much support for it from any experienced users. The fact that someone who fails their current RfA can reapply shortly seems a fair reason for keeping the 75% barrier, since it means they are only delayed in getting adminship typically. There is a lot of fear of promoting rogue admins (which I don't share so much) that motivates many to keep very high standards. NoSeptember talk 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Nichalp/Archive20 has a little on Freestylefrappe. NoSeptember talk 07:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Master Jay's RfA

Thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, leave me a note. --Jay(Reply) 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adminship history

Bear in mind that the edit histories prior to February 2002 are full of gaps and therefore misleading, see Wikipedia:Usemod_article_histories. At first, the KeptPages feature of UseMod only kept revisions less than two weeks old, so early edits were lost unless they had remained the most recent edit for the article at the time the timeout was adjusted. There were various bugs in KeptPages itself and in early conversion attempts, that together caused much of the history to be irretrievably lost. Further, the history importation was partly manual and confused by the then-new distinction between article space, Wikipedia space, and user space.

It's probably worth pointing out that adminship in the UseMod era was truly no big deal at all. It was prior to my involvement here, but I understand that we have not always had protected pages or the ability to block users, and that deletion was handled considerably differently in UseMod. Initially, a good deal of the administration was done by technical people using shell access to the server.

The main point being that any distinctions in the editing or adminship history of anyone who was here prior to the conversion to Phase II should not be made.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I know there was a time when deleted articles were not recoverable too. Much has changed. NoSeptember talk 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100

Killjoy :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the long edit summary to encourage others to get curious and read your contribution, which was bound to get reverted anyway :-). NoSeptember talk 18:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw "YesSeptember"

Cute name. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Fixes

I tried to fix your talk page by using a hack by Interiot to keep your image at the bottom of the page, let me know if you like it. Happy editing! Prodego talk 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it for a while, though it doesn't seem to work right all the time. NoSeptember talk 15:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the break lines causing the problem, look now. Prodego talk 15:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me now. Prodego talk 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails in IE though. Prodego talk 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah,still some problems with it. NoSeptember talk 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA

Note to bureaucrats: The above user has been a bureaucrat for less than a month (^_~). NoSeptember talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting here, but if you think I have no business commenting on bureaucrat matters, I'll be more than happy to let you take over. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that that was a joke which was based on the specific topic that was being discussed. Hence, I was suggesting nothing. It wouldn't be the first time my drollery did not translate over the internet. I see no reason why you can't comment on topics that everyone else can comment on. Btw, I already have the Historique des changements de statut linked on this page, but thanks for linking it again :-). NoSeptember talk 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, I see...It was in the style of the "discount this vote" messages; I took it to be more sniping on me because I'm the new guy on the block (the new guy doing 60% of the work)...

At any rate, sorry for assuming you were being snippy, and for being snippy myself. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this means you now know how a voter feels when their vote is challenged. Good information for a bureaucrat to have. Glad I could help ;-) and keep up the good work. NoSeptember talk 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Recently created admins

Thanks for catching that for me; seems that whenever I get in a hurry (I was heading to lunch) I forget something! :-D Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No problem. NoSeptember talk 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Although, (unless I'm being stupid here,) to date, I haven't had an RFA nomination fail to pass(?). All of the nominations I can think of make me six-for-six. Though there was some initial controversy about Hamster Sandwich's success, and I've had some that declined my offers. In any case, I do think it's time I started making more nominations again, and have some others in mind. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

RFA thanks

Hey NoSeptember, I wanted to personally thank you for your RFA comments, and your support on my talk page. You and I probably (judging from your comment) had the same expectations from the talk page. Rest assured I don't plan on trying again for at least a couple months, but I do plan on trying again in the future, when I'm ready. You're always a helpful mentor to me on wikipedia, and I thank you for that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Moe

Hello NoSeptember, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

HI

Sorry I put up the no edit because I was on a Wiki break. Sorry for the enconvince. Cheers! Lord Dude 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Works

Yes! The un-block works! Now I can go revert that vandalism that I was dying to revert. Thank You! --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, we just always need a little bit of info. in order to find the right IP to unblock. NoSeptember talk 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

Thank you for your supporting comments; it seems I beat the curve on your when to vote criteria :). Incidentally I answered your query on the Beatles Wikiproject talk page. - Taxman Talk 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Well I guess I'm not "one of those people I can't recall ever even seeing their name anywhere" anymore :-). Have fun as an umpire, and don't forget to chat on WT:RFA with us. NoSeptember talk 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no you didn't make that list either :). - Taxman Talk 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoSeptember&oldid=52041520"