User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 0

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Rollback granted
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! ''By the way, you have the unique pleasure of being the first user I've granted rollback to. Don't let me down! ;>'' xenocidic (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

I won't. Thanks for your trust - its a useful tool WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename
Hi, can you just pop back to CHU and confirm the note I've left for you? Then I'll carry out your request immediately. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi WereSpielChequers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta Muchly, very impressed at how well that worked  WereSpielChequers  (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

 * Your RFA was closed as unsuccessful. I encourage you to work on areas of concern and try again in the future. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick CSD Survey
Hey Were, A few days ago you made some off the cuff comment about how you didn't know what others thought about your CSD work. I took that as an invitation to take a look... and it looks great. There were some concerns back in September---particularly with your edit summaries---but nothing major. The problem I noticed was that you were using something to the effect of "Not globaly notable yet" or something like that. Well, that is not part of the criteria for keeping, a lot of articles are on people who are not globally notable. The question is are they notable. I also don't like your edit summaries for CSD tagging, I'm never quite sure of what it is talking about---especially the older stuff. I like the more standardized edit summaries that tell me what specific category you are looking at. I have to say, that you seem to have found a niche in USER:NAMES/Attack Pages. Attack pages are one of the "safe" csd categories. I personally rarely see anything wrong with them when articles are deleted as attack pages. There was one article that I was going to nail you for, an article in a foreign language, but you didn't tag it for speedy---and amazing the person who deleted it didn't do so for being in Hindi, they apparently spoke hindi and deleted it as blatant advertising in hindi!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Balloonman, yup that off the cuff comment was indeed an invitation, and thanks for taking it up. I don't remember the Hindi article, and can only speak two words of Hindi so not sure what I picked up on there. I'll have a look for the page on approved edit summaries on CSD tagging, but while I write edit summaries of attack pages primarily with the admin in mind, when I'm dealing with bios of teenagers and the newly redundant I tend to think of the author whose reading why I've nommed their CV for deletion. Hence my use of "Not yet globally notable" to spare their feelings. Searching User space for "badwords" certainly turned up a lot of old attack pages, perhaps naively I was expecting just to be reverting vandalism on long dormant user pages, and a little surprised at how many times it was the user who was the author. I don't agree that all attacks are clear, and if you don't mind I may bounce some borderline ones by you to see if I've got my tolerance setting right. But once again thanks for the survey.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: RfA
Woah, I opposed your last one? Well that's just the bat shit because in recent times I thought you were an admin already. My only advice is don't kill your last one by making it a joke, be serious. There's nothing wrong with throwing in a joke or two but don't let other people get the impression that you're making a joke of the whole system. I'm supporting anyway, watchlisted. I'll even co-nom you if you want. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cyclo, yes I've taken the point about humour - no Lolcats next time.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to take a closer look at you, but I would be willing to consider a co-nom... my review of your CSD work was a definite positive and my overall impression is positive (But I'd have to do a thorough review first.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I do like the idea of having the poppable one and one of my opposers as co-noms, so Balloonman yes please review me, but no need to hurry; One concern I have is over timing, I have been told that three months is on the edge of acceptability as a gap between RFAs, and I don't want to run until I can see a week where I can be online every day. Also though this process of contacting my opposers has started very well I'm not assuming that everyone will be so quick to reply or so positive.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered via e-mail. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and replied  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell week???
 I'm Spartacus! would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact I'm Spartacus! to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. You might want to take a look at How to pass an RfA... make sure that when you answer your questions, you give complete thoughtful answers (this is a job interview) and don't transclude unless you have 2-4 hours to baby sit the RfA. A few months ago, people started opposing if questions sat that first day. That intensity has died down some, but it still rears its ugly head on occassion. Also, if you can highlight some of your article building that would be great---I mean 70% of your edits are in the article space.--- I'm Spartacus!  PoppaBalloon 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SUCKER! Good luck--- I'm Spartacus!  PoppaBalloon 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of luck both at your RFA and wikicup --  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My oppose
Thank you for clarifying your position regarding those UAA reports. I wasn't aware that they had created attack pages or other flagrant wiki-violations when I cast my !vote. I still think they aren't username problems, per se, but at least your reasoning was understandable. The oppose is now struck. Cheers mate. Good luck.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wisdom, much appreciated.  Were Spiel  Chequers  20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

6 votes away
You are six votes away from getting my support ;0--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat the crat gratz
OMG YAY! WP:100! Well done! GARDEN 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!  iMatthew //  talk  //  23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you did meet my expectations after all...--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, that was fast :P GARDEN  23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, this'll only give you more time to compete in the Cup, right? :P Useight (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well more than I have been this week. Maybe I should now try and take Marilyn Manson or Richard Dawkins to FAC.  Were Spiel  Chequers  23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So you became an admin....
...and you first two edits are this and this? :O Lol, anyways...congrats man :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had only known!!!--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You got to WP:100 by the skin of your teeth :) Congratulations man, hope to join you some day. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers is obviously rouge. So far, 100% of his 0 administrator actions have been an inappropriate use of the tools. --Deskana (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, dude! Ceran  →// forge 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done on passing, use the tools well! Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from a sluggish voter
Oh, well, I did not notice your RfA was finished before I changed my vote on you. Although my vote would be kept at "oppose" section for my laziness, the examples that you gave me are good enough for me to believe that you will be a good admin. Good luck with the shiny tools. --Caspian blue 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Don't know if you saw this, but thought you might want to see it.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 04:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Congratulations,, your RfA passed with ( 100 / 7 / 2 )!

Best of luck as an administrator, and good luck in general for the future.

&mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is so late. Congrats! :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and enjoy! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Seiel Spiel, was cleaning out my watchlist, (your RfA) and saw you closed with a go. Congratulations! Best of luck. — Ched (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ched, and I'm now back in the UK - very glad I timed my RFA for the week I was around and on broadband  Were Spiel  Chequers  22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

X clamation point  04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My late congrats too. Like the thoughtful response comments, not a templated message (like I used on most of mine). Cheers,  Spencer T♦C 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship/WereSpielChequers
Is this ever going to turn blue? –xenotalk 22:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Xeno. That's a good question, and a few years ago I would have said not in the foreseeable future. There was a time when I was an active RFA nominator, very concerned about the drought at RFA and unsure how one could structure a community where few were admins. I think in that phase of my wiki-career there would have been a lot of opposes for me being overly supportive at RFA. Since then I've had too many regulars assure me they really don't want to be admins for me to stick to those views, plus I've come to realise that much of our drought at RFA is simply a reaction to unbundlings, especially of Rollback. Then there was a time when I was probably too inclusionist to pass RFB, and one of the first to oppose for a CSD error, then only for two errors, and now for multiple recent CSD errors. As for now, perhaps I'm ready, but do you really need another crat?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We’re down by 7 bureaucrats in 12 months. There’s only 16 left, and some of us only somewhat active and available. I do think it’s time for a bit of a replenishment. –xenotalk 01:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Many, many years ago was the very first Wikipedian I ever met in real life. Since that time we have collaborated on and off, on- and off-Wiki  very closely. I would be the first to volunteer to nominate him for 'Crat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d be willing to write a short co-nom or qualifying support as well, if only to temper the “no need for more” contingent. –xenotalk 08:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)10 of last 15 successful RfBs were self-nom, so feel free to follow the trend –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk|undefined 14:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The no-need argument is rot. We don't need a lot of help pushing buttons. We do need a group of active Crats who will speak up with their (policy-informed) views in Cratchats (and to a lesser extent at BN etc), particularly the difficult ones. The history of Cratchats shows that a good argument can sway our opinions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We need more 'crats like Will (who left because of Framgate) who will stand up for what they believe is best for Wikipedia, even in the face of the disgraced Arbcom.  If, as I suspect, you are capable of making reasonable sense of a melee of nonsense, and if, as I suspect, you can be trusted, then you should go for it.  God knows we have no trust in Arbcom now, this has been the worst couple of years ever, so we need some decent hard-working 'crats, and you'd be one of them.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all four of you. I have a couple of Real Life things going on at the moment that make this a tricky time for me to find a week when I'm able to give an RFB the time it needs. One of those is a short project of a month or so which could start at any time and is quite likely to keep me busy for much of the rest of this year. So I may not be able to run before the New Year. As for Arbcom, I'm waiting for the next big leak to make sense of some of what has happened. For them to drop briefly to five actives hints to me, as if we didn't already know, that all has not been well there. One of the reasons why I am open to running for Crat but not for Arb is that I don't want to put myself into the sort of situation that the arbs have been in in recent months. As far as I'm aware crats don't get any secret unshareable info from the WMF? and apart from one isolated episode, crats are largely above the fray, trying to judge consensus for the whole community on RFAs, but mainly with information that is available to everyone except a few things that are available to all admins.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats don't even have a mailing list anymore. Everything bureaucrats do (in theory), should be onwiki, with no secret processes, etc.. I can only think of one or two instances where non-public information related to an RfA was disclosed on the (now shuttered) mailing list. Thanks for considering to serve, I'll watchlist the page in anticipation =) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd make a fine addition to our ranks. Kick it off whenever you want. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I, and prob most others, would support you in a heart beat. Steady, deliberative, thoughtful. Don't see an issue re activity during the election, re duties....bureaucrats don't need to be particularly here and there 24 hours, they just need to be wise and carry gravitas from time to time. You will certainly have overwhealming support from the content crowd. Ceoil  (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, WereSpielChequers, please. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks
I do like it when one of my longstanding redlinks goes blue. Good luck. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cabayi, this has been delayed a few months by real life stuff, including times when I was trying to edit via an Ipad. But I'm now back home and with a light week coming up.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to this transcluding so I can add a "strong support" to it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Requests for bureaucratship/WereSpielChequers is live.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Already supported, but please fix the typos in your self-nom statement ;) Valenciano (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a historian of RFX, I thought you might appreciate that this seems to be the first time since 2009 that there have been two concurrent RFBs. Useight (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think of myself as an historian of RFA and had tended to ignore RFB, but having skimmed most of the successful ones this afternoon I can see some interesting patterns. I may write something up when the current crop of RFBs are over.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your RFB
I have closed your RFB as successful. Congratulations. Useight (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations WSC. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the team! — xaosflux  Talk 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them! –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good things getting out of hand seems like a good idea! Congrats WSC! Regards  So  Why  20:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Crat Beer Brownies

 * WSC, please be careful what's in those brownies. You just never know ;) Congrats on the successful RfB! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Many congrats WSC!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Heartiest Congratulations! Puddleglum  2.0  19:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to offer my congratulations as well. Clover moss  (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All things considered that seemed pretty painless, which is a sign of how much editors appreciate you. Glad to see a fellow Typo Team member become a 'crat! Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very happy to see you stepping up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your consecration as a bureaucrat.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, that was a humbling experience and not at all what I had prepared for. On the positive side it was very civil. lots of people said nice things about me and the people I expected to oppose stayed away. The only ancient things that were dragged up were the status of a bunch of articles where I had corrected a typo in the name many years ago. My insistence on hypothetical questions rather than re-examining contentious RFAs was probably the most contentious aspect of it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me, too! MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and best wishes. Glad to have been able to support. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)