User talk:Leucosticte
Contents
Blocked[edit]
Hi. You've been blocked from Meta-Wiki for three months. You were sufficiently warned to behave here and you willfully ignored this advice. Rather than moving on, you chose to try to make a public scene out of the pseudo-essay that you inappropriately created here. That's quite enough. You may appeal this block to the Wikimedia Foundation or to its Board of Trustees. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what all this came from but I'm quite certain that's not the process for unblock requests on Meta. :) --Nemo 08:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) P.s.: Leucosticte, I now see from an archived copy that this essay was about an en.wiki thing. I know you're from a different background, but you should know that en.wiki applies w:Democratic centralism: once you've failed your internal fight, en.wiki criticism performed elsewhere can only worsen yours and others' situation, especially in a tightly connected and only partially free wiki like Meta. You can't change en.wiki, stop it.
- Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Leucosticte. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your edits to Talk:Child protection. Please consider this another final warning to completely and unambiguously avoid this topic here on Meta-Wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with the reversion, because I think that the spirit and letter of the rules does not authorize you to remove others' comments that were, themselves, not in violation of the rules, from a talk page; but there's nothing I can do about it. The community will let you get away with blocking me if I revert your reversion. Leucosticte (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons[edit]
I see that Russavia tried to ban you from Commons: [1], [2]. Russavia recently tried to ban me from Commons (for an alleged crime that is unrelated to the crime that you were alleged of doing). [removed url]; do not trust him. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are lots of troublemakers who like to make trouble by pointing the finger at others and saying, "Ban that troublemaker!" Leucosticte (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've witnessed a lot of that. I've retired from Wikimedia, although I'm currently trying to rap up some unfinished business at Commons (someone resurrected a thread from March that I was involved in). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Maybe you should write an article (like the one I wrote about the 5 March 2014 block) analyzing the situation, providing the diffs to show how the sysops misbehaved, and reflecting on lessons learned. It could make it easier for people to grasp what happened and understand why you view certain user(s) as having been in the wrong. Otherwise, people will return to the usual default of "Oh, it's michaeldsuarez, that bad person, involved in another conflict. He seems to cause trouble everywhere."
- I've witnessed a lot of that. I've retired from Wikimedia, although I'm currently trying to rap up some unfinished business at Commons (someone resurrected a thread from March that I was involved in). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- What would sysops do, to justify their existence, if they didn't have scapegoats they could kick off so that it looks like they're doing something useful for the project? They need people like you. They need people like you so you can point their fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make them? Good? They're not good. They just know how to hide, how to lie. You? You don't have that problem.
-
-
-
- Anyway, most of the cool people (and even some of the people who are pretty uncool in my book) seem to be retiring from Wikimedia these days, so join the club. Something better will eventually come along; already, people are starting to work around Wikimedia's shortcomings. Regrettably, I didn't have a chance to play as active and central a role in that process as I would have liked; I had some of my own ideas, but was not able to implement them. Leucosticte (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but I'm not fond of blogging or sharing too many details about my life, and I believe that I have found better things to do outside of Wikimedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed a url personally identifying a person. @Michaeldsuarez Really?!? You should know better. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah; however the person had widely announced his identity,
so I wouldn't be too hard on Michaeldsuarez. Nevertheless, Leucosticte's web sites and many linkages are going down, so that link is probably better, gone, it is not needed here. The user has been realizing that maybe privacy isn't such a bad thing.Thanks, Billinghurst. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Never mind. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC) - @billinghurst: From my point of view, the Commons community should know better. Everyone there are too willing to hide and ignore the truth, and you're aiding in the concealment of the truth. You believe that you're being helpful, but your actions are part of the problem. The truth shouldn't be buried; I know that, and that belief is better than what you're preaching. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah; however the person had widely announced his identity,
- I have removed a url personally identifying a person. @Michaeldsuarez Really?!? You should know better. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but I'm not fond of blogging or sharing too many details about my life, and I believe that I have found better things to do outside of Wikimedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, most of the cool people (and even some of the people who are pretty uncool in my book) seem to be retiring from Wikimedia these days, so join the club. Something better will eventually come along; already, people are starting to work around Wikimedia's shortcomings. Regrettably, I didn't have a chance to play as active and central a role in that process as I would have liked; I had some of my own ideas, but was not able to implement them. Leucosticte (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-
RE: Commons[edit]
It's funny that they used enwiki as the justification for your block. Recently, the Commons community (or at least the few community members who participated in the discussion) declared that events on enwiki should be ignored, even when that sysop published a blatant lie on Commons, so they're ignoring events on Commons as well. I guess that sysops are untouchable, while unpopular contributors such as you or me suffer.
Maybe it isn't too late. Be confident in the idea that things can be fixed, and try to work things out, but if it is too late, then I guess that it's good that you learned from the experience. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
RE: Inclupedia[edit]
Sorry, but I'm not involved in any wiki besides Encyclopedia Dramatica anymore. I hardly ever sign into Wikimedia anymore, and I'm not interested in becoming involved in MediaWiki stuff. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I love MediaWiki stuff. Leucosticte (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
·addshore· talk to me! 15:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Very nice site!" vandal[edit]
This is an extremely common comment spam pattern on blogs (perhaps even the most common nowadays). Usually they include a link to their website, I don't know if for clicking or for pagerank. It's possible that there is no specific aim for mediawiki and they're just posting the same stuff everywhere (failing to post an URL because there is no "website" field for "comments" in MediaWiki). --Nemo 00:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)