User talk:NoSeptember/archives/blocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Return to the NoSeptember:  
 Topical archives index   Talk page   

Contents

[edit] rv Help (Xerocs)

Hi, I have been monitoring the recent activity on the RC page and I have noticed minor vandalism here and there... the problem that I am having is doing rollbacks or reverting it to the original content. Can I do this as just an ordinary user and if so how? Thanks for your help. xerocs 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] RexNL block

Related talk: here, here, here and here

[edit] Feb 30 does not exist

Watch out, that diff may come back and haunt you. People will point to it and laugh at you. February 30 DOES exist, and it's the only reason I remember it. I think Mr. Lamo just does not want it for privacy... but this is an encyclopedia, he is no more entitled to "keep information hidden" than Congress is. I will revert the change one more time and I invite you to research the matter before reverting it again. This is getting old, don't forget your roots Wikipedia:Assume good faith. 68.223.43.236 08:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot my birthday again. Oh wait! No I didn't. Whew. Scary time warp there. Thanks, NoSeptember, for the revert.
Adrian Lamo ·· 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Lamo, can you verify that Feb 30 is NOT your birthday... can you just SAY it... and I'll believe it! 68.223.43.236 08:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i'm an idiot, I meant to write Feb 29. Sorry NS. 68.223.43.236 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
/me bows to noseptember 68.223.43.236 08:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And you clearly knew it wasn't a leap year *or* my birthday, pal. Let's have that be the end of that, eh?
Adrian Lamo ·· 08:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Again (Xerocs)

Thanks for bailing me out once again... the unblock worked. I am close with the Network control guys here so I am working on finding out who the vandal is from this range of IPs. I am not personally attacking Curps, well maybe I am, but he definately needs a wake up call... Just blocking an IP without even warning the user... I know that isn't how we do things. But either way, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerocs (talk • contribs) .

I know no one is out to get me... I am just suggesting that there has to be a better way or at least a proccess. Add that to getting a response from an Admin like, "I don't have to do a goddamned thing" and it just makes me wonder about the state of things, you know what I mean? Oh yeah, sorry I keep forgeting the tildes xerocs 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Thanks, again (CanadianCaesar)

For your encouragement. I'm pretty confident I can do this right, just needed a few days to cool off. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Re: Blanking (Robchurch)

Sorry. 86.133.210.221 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problemo, Rob. NoSeptember talk 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Related: here

[edit] Thank you (Francs2000)

Thank you for the birthday greetings, they're much appreciated. Incidentally I can explain why one particular IP has targetted me more than any other - it's used by Buckinghamshire County Council and I "watchlist" Buckinghamshire place articles because I created most of them. I don't believe they are all the same user. -- Francs2000 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Thank You 2 (General Eisenhower)

Thank you for clearying up me being blocked from editing on my talk page. -User:General Eisenhower

I also thank you for clearing up the editing block. Oh and I'm back to gain Wikipedia more glory. -Code Napoleon

Related talk: here, here and here ([1] [2])

[edit] Blocking of 62.253.245.100

Hi NoSeptember, I would like to just tell you that I have created account with this IP address, but the problem is when I want to edit a page I cannot edit it becuase the IP this computer uses is connected to the Wikipedia servers. So when I want to edit the page I cannot because the IP is blocked. So, unfortunately, I cannot edit when the IP is blocked. Hillhead15 13:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] False positive (JamesMLane, Proto, Tawkerbot2)

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)

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

Related talk: here, here and here

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Re:Suspected Sockpuppet (General Eisenhower)

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)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] StrangerInParadise

Related talk: here, here, here, here and here

[edit] HI (Lord Dude)

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)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Unblock Works (GeorgeMoney)

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)

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)

Related talk: here

[edit] Thanks (Bronzey)

Thanks for unblocking my school's IP, obviously with 14 blocks some kids went on a few vandalism sprees... anyway, I know people will keep vandalising and it's annoying, but it is a shared IP and 95% of the people who could use Wikipedia there are perfectly innocent. Thanks again, Bronzey 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex071404 and Oven Fresh

Related talk: here, here, here and here

[edit] Thanks from kotepho

Thank you for moving the message and deleting my userpage. Kotepho 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Email (GeorgeMoney)

I've sent you an email; please don't discuss it outside of the email space. Thanks. Mopper Speak! 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, replied. NoSeptember talk 05:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Would this email happen to be a forward of the email I sent Mopper? I just want to know. --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No, he didn't forward to me anything you have written, and I'm sure he'd ask your permission if he wanted to do so. Of course, you can email me if you want to. NoSeptember talk 05:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll email my message to you too. But, I said in the email he can forward it to anybody except the person it's about. --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally! I rewrote the Email, because I didn't save it when I sent it to Mopper. That took a long time to rewrite. The Email has been sent. --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I am careful to make a copy of all emails I send due to how wikipedia email works, I appreciate the effort, but if I knew you were going to do all that work, I would have suggested against it :-). NoSeptember talk 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
At least did you receive it yet? --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Received and replied. NoSeptember talk 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you replied? I didn't get it yet.
Wait a minute. What email address did Wikipedia tell you I was using?--GeorgeMoney T·C 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't tell the rest of us what your email address is. Go to your preferences and check, and change it if it is not the one you want. NoSeptember talk 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked it and it is transform726@hotmail.com, but that doesn't seem to be working. Maybe you could do boss@georgemoney.com . --GeorgeMoney T·C 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism comment (Nathan, GangstaEB)

Regarding your comment in User:nathanrdotcom/Vandalise, you may wish to amend or delete it based on this:

  • I don't think you have the whole story. My vandalise page doesn't actually condone violation of Wikipedia policy (and I will include a note to that effect to those who just aren't getting the idea - I feel I shouldn't have to say it though). I do not encourage breaking WP policy under any circumstances.
  • Blanking any part of the page (which is what User:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny did) is against Wikipedia policy, and as an admin, you know it as well as I do. He vandalised the whole thing not the designated area. He got his warning, now he's lashing out at me for doing so.
    Diffs are provided here and here. Two deliberate blankings of the page, which is vandalism.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would just mention on my talk page if you don't agree with something I've said or done so we can talk about it. That's not a lot to ask. Thanks. — nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the page, because it was not an urgent issue.

  • Nice joke pages are fine, and a friendly warnings are fine, but if a page becomes a continual disruption, then we must weigh its value to the encyclopedia. When you have a page like that, you need to expect that some will take it literally and actually vandalize it, or want to do more than just add a message.
  • If you have such a page, it is your responsibility to not get upset about how people react to it. I have a footer on this page, but I don't complain when others don't follow instructions, it is my responsibility that the footer is non-standard, so I accept that I must fix it without complaint.
  • Others have been happily reverting your page for you when needed. Warnings should be as mild as possible. You can't have it both ways, plant the idea of vandalism into people's head, and then get all serious when they follow through.
  • He apologized after your warning, and the AfD was prompted by my comment, I wouldn't characterize that as "lashing out". Let us all just get along :-). Cheers, NoSeptember talk 06:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here, here and here

[edit] Sigh. (General Eisenhower, MOP)

More stuff involving General Eisenhower. What should I do? (if you didn't notice, those are standard pictures that come with Windows XP. He is claiming they are his.) Thanks, Mopper Speak! 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If he violates policy, he should be warned. If he fails to correct himself or causes disruption, he should be blocked. Eventually he will learn the policies and will violate them at his own risk. NoSeptember talk 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at his upload log. He not only uploaded standard Microsoft Copyrighted images, but he also updated other copyvios. --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
He was already blocked for using an admin signature. In my honest opinion, I think he just wants a bit of attention... he is just trying to be bold, after all. I told him on his talk page; now all we need to do is take those images off. Mopper Speak! 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That block was weeks ago. He needs to know that he can be blocked repeatedly if necessary. Block talk is premature here, since he hasn't refused to cooperate yet. I agree he is definitely an attention seeker. NoSeptember talk 07:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My sub-pages (Moe Epsilon)

Hey NoSeptember. The answer to your question on WP:AN is yes, everything. Could you also re-redelete my user talk page and all it's subpages too. Sorry if this is a hassle. Moe ε 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a topic on AN/I, it is probably best for me to wait a few days for things to settle down on the issue of your user talk page. I am working on your subpages (remember how you archived comments from each user in a unique archive? :-P.) Have patience, it will get done :-). NoSeptember talk 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I bet you a few users right now hate me for my old archiving methods. ;-) Moe ε 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to be considered a very active admin when the stats come out with me having hundreds of deletions ;-). NoSeptember talk 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you also get these? Moe ε 00:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Here is your reward 400 deletes in one day!... although, thats not much of a gift. ;-) Cheers! Moe ε 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] RFC (Nathan, MOP, Tony Sidaway RFC)

Well, in this case the RfC was filed because Nathanrdotcom felt that he had been unjustly blocked. And I know that it was only 20 minutes, but if Tony Sidaway feels the need to block on a dime because he feels a situation is getting disruptive made a few people question Tony's knowledge of policy, or at least understanding. Mopper Speak! 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with nathan complaining about what he sees as an improper block. The issue to me is how far such a complaint should go. When one has a well attended discussion on the notice board and a bunch of talk pages, is it necessary to go to RFC? And if one gets no satisfaction there, will it go to ArbCom? What next, the New York Times? The reaction just seems disproportionate to the alleged offense. NoSeptember talk 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Not New York Times or ArbCom, but if we have admins running around blocking on a whim because they feel like it, then that would be bad. Firstly, no attempt was made to talk to Nathan about the block; it was just a "try it and see what happens" approach, with no warning. Secondly, no apology was released, because the editor "felt satisfied" because he felt the community supported his block. So if an apology is made, things would go much, much more easily. As it stands, Tony blocked on a nonexistant policy, then when seeing he did wrong tried to change that policy. So the reaction is justified, I feel. Mopper Speak! 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A "try it and see what happens" approach is typical of how Wikipedia has developed over the years. Policy is important, but it is not complete and comprehensive and never has been. There is always room for acting in the grey area of policy. If you go too far, your actions will be modified. We have WP:AN and WP:ANI to discuss whether something is reasonable or not, and corrections can be made. We are making up policy as we go when we discuss whether the community agrees to an indefinite block of a particular user, for example. We can all be blocked for less than perfect reasons. As long as it is worked out, it should be OK. But this will not work if we take everything too personally. Being blocked is not always a personal affront, and should not be taken that way. And admins are people who can make errors just like anyone else. There are always users and admins who are willing to correct those mistakes if they are out of line, but it is the community that gets to decide, not just one segment of the community. The sig and civility issue has been debated before, and it is very much in the grey area, no policy clearly for or against the idea of blocking over the issue. So if we just accept that we will work things out in general terms, and not dwell on each action in isolation, we will come to conclusions that will become informal policy, and perhaps in time, official policy. Anyone can edit policy pages, and often those changes will stick. Wikipedia policy is surprisingly fluid and undefined until we have specific cases that are discussed and a policy solution agreed to. NoSeptember talk 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here, here and here

[edit] Agree. (Nathan, Tony Sidaway RFC)

I agree with you. Try not to look so startled. - Nathan @ 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. We're all capable of overreacting and digging in our heels at times. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] i am now unblocked (Touth)

YES IT WORKED I AM NOW UNBLOCKED! THANK YOU SO MUCH I OWN YOU ONE!Touth 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. NoSeptember talk 00:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Unprotect (Lou franklin)

Hi,

An admin protected my talk page while I was blocked with the intention of unprotecting it once the block expired. He then went on vacation. Could you please unprotect the page? See [3]

(I also sent you an email). Lou franklin 12:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Lou franklin 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Can I really sign here? (GeorgeMoney)

It is a vandalism box, isn't it? --GeorgeMoney T·C 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Thanks (Geogre)

Thanks for the revert. The anon was almost certainly a current-blocked person who is avidly watching all conversation about him or her. <shrug> It's a major time-sink. I appreciate the quick revert. Geogre 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, it was quite obvious. NoSeptember 12:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (Where)

Thanks for the information and the congrats :) -- Where 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] User:Trödel/Sandbox1

Restored. NoSeptember 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thx --Trödel 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Conrad Devonshire

Related talk: here

[edit] Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Blu Aardvark (again)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Protected image at IFD (Encyclopedia Dramatica)

I noticed that you protected the image Image:Dramatica what.jpg against vandalism. Someone has since nominated this image for deletion, but was unable to add {{ifd}} to the image description (and {{ifdc|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}} to the caption) due to the protection. Would you mind taking a minute to add them since we non-admins can't? Thanks. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Reblock (GangstaEB)

Reblock that IP you unblocked earlier. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Thank You! (Derekhe)

I'm a wikipedian in Chinese Version:zh:User:Derekhe. I have just Registration on English Wikipedia and Someone fucked me at the talk page just now. But if I'm a newbie, I will think I am unwelcome in the Wikipedia. This a good web site, and thank you very much! Derekhe 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Bot request (User interactions - Voice of All)

I replied on the bot request page. That comment should really be moved to userscripts though :).Voice-of-All 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). NoSeptember 22:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses (Geni, Kelly Martin)

I'm afraid I can't answer that you will have to ask the committee. At a guess I'd say the members talk pages would be the next aproach but I really don't know.Geni 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Re: ED (Springeragh)

I don't understand… —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here

[edit] Sorry (NOVO-REI, Phaedriel, Lar)

You removed a link I had to User:Phaedriel's talk page which disclosed a very unflattering webpage about her. I was not trying to commit an act of vandalism, however, I feel this user has the right to know about degrading content being posted about her on the world wide web. I understand your intentions, however, I believe you sincerely are overlooking a critical problem concerning her. NOVO-REI 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

She already knows all about it, trust me. There are better ways of telling her than posting it on her talk page anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] Giano

Kindly do not leave pompous, officious, and threatening messages on my talk page. Thank you Giano | talk 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving messages to discourage incivility towards other users is an accepted practice at Wikipedia, you are free to consider them pompous or officious if you want to. NoSeptember 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not accepted by me, so you are in error. I do consider you to be both presumptious and threatening, and have repleid to that effect on my own page. Giano | talk 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So, it is accepted practice at Wikipedia, but not accepted by you personally. I hope that this disparity does not lead to problems for you in the future. Cheers, NoSeptember 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here and here and here

[edit] Are you accusing me of "staging" something? (Bishonen)

I hope I'm misreading you, but this remark made me blink in disbelief. It sounds exactly like you're accusing me of some deception or collusion — I assume collusion with Giano — some type of dishonest practice, "for an audience". Are you? Please be as specific and explicit as possible on this head, I'm really interested. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Of course not and nothing in the post even hinted at deception or collusion or dishonesty. Where did you come up with such an idea? The most I said about you was that you misunderstood my original post there. Please do not try to interpret complicated layers of hidden meaning into my posts, I tend to post quite literal thoughts and am not trying to create hidden messages. When I say for example, "there is nothing wrong with encouraging users to keep their posts civil", I mean just that without any sort of hidden meaning. And I hope you agree with that simple statement, and I encourage you to leave encouragements to remain civil here whenever you feel it is needed (I promise I won't try to find any sort of hidden meaning in it if you do). NoSeptember 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did I come up with... right. Well, I assumed I was part of "some users" and "at least two users". Now you tell me you intended no connection between the sentences these appeared in, and the following sentences about "staged wikidrama" and an "audience". Even though they were all part of the same single short paragraph. I'm glad to hear it. If you were a student of mine, I would "encourage" you to try for a greater degree of control of textual implication. But I won't be so patronizing. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
Yes, it was a separate thought, I don't make posts with a bunch of short paragraphs usually. <<Special Bishonen complete change of thought notification :)>> I agree with your RfA statement that blocks can have consequences, particularly in how blocked users react. I think the same is true of users who have to deal with ongoing incivility, it can affect their attitude about wikipedia and even whether they will continue at the project. How people react to incivility should be taken as seriously as how they react to blocking, and it's the friends of a user who should be the first to encourage that user to remain civil at all times. NoSeptember 00:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] ED (GeorgeMoney)

I saw you've been removing links to encyclopedia dramatica and want to inform you that they even have an interwiki prefix for it at m:Interwiki map. Do you think the interwiki should be removed? I think it should be removed. And it is also breaking the rules about the interwikis. "Remember to specify why the prefix would be useful on a significant number of pages on Wikimedia Foundation projects". How is ED helpful? GeorgeMoney (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. A request to remove it would have to be made here, and I have no idea of what standards they would apply to such a request, but it would be worth bringing the issue to their attention. NoSeptember 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason I found out about the interwiki was Freakofnurture blocked 74.104.100.26 with the block summary of just a link to the ED page on nathan using the interwiki, which I find highly inappropriate. GeorgeMoney (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly understood (NOVO-REI,Encyclopedist)

Sorry for the posts on the encyclopedic rival of Wikipedia which from now on will go unnamed from my part. I was only trying to inform Phaedriel of what was going on for her benefit. Also, I would like to know your opinion on the case of the former Wikipedian Encyclopedist. Has this type of thing happened before? Is he now a "major" vandal - given the amount and the sheer (mostly positive) history of the user? NOVO-REI 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Only by returning to constant productive article editing will he return to the good graces of the community, forgeting all thoughts of RfA, forgeting all disputations with other users and past controversies, and so on. And he doesn't need the Encyclopedist username to do productive editing (I'm sure he is already editing by IP anyway, perhaps not a lot though). I don't think there is such a thing as a major vandal, all vandals are more and more just being considered as bothersome, and should be and are starting to be ignored. What happened months ago is no longer significant, Wikipedia has moved on. NoSeptember 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

[edit] NOVO-REI = Encyclopedist? (Scobell302)

I have a suspicion that NOVO-REI and Encyclopedist might be the same person or at least connected in some way. Here's my evidence: NR's user page looks similar in style and design to Encyclopedist's former user page; both E and NR are college students in Florida; both list English as their native language and have a decent command of Spanish and Portuguese, with some command of French and Interlingua; and both show an interest in history. What do you think? Scobell302 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I had considered the possibility, and wrote the reply above assuming Encyclopedist would read it sooner or later. But I don't really care about role accounts unless and until they start acting badly. Wikipedia can not truly ban anyone from posting, and as long as they are posting constructively, we have no need to worry about socks. Btw, whose role account are you? ;) NoSeptember 12:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here