User talk:Mike.lifeguard
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
|
 Post a comment |
| If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body |
Contents |
[edit] check user
Hello, could you please have a check on SRCU#Sdee@zh.wikipedia now? Since a nomination in zhwiki is involved suspected sock-puppet's voting and will end within 24 hours. Thank you very much! --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Locking the Public speakers page
Hi, Mike. I'm sorry to see that you had to come and settle the cowboys and Indians once again on the Public speakers page. It's really surprising to me that some people take such a great interest in a page that gets very little editing activity, and a dearth of reader activity, if we trust the stats counter. Anyway, at the point you froze the page, other editors had deliberately modified my listing, without notifying me of any discussion, without my participation in the discussion, and without notification of the outcome of the discussion. I would say that this practically smacks of vandalism! Anyway, I have asked for a transcript of this supposed IRC discussion, but until we all see that and are able to review if it was a fair discussion of impartial parties, I would appreciate if you would re-lock the Public speakers page in its immediately prior state, before the vandalism to my listing? Thank you! -- Thekohser 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. Hash it out on the talk page. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you see, we had sort of done that, and then a new gang of interlopers decided that they would set policy on IRC. It seems rather unfair that you would give credit to such a technique, while punishing my attempts to keep the discussion toward consensus moving on the talk page. Do you see the contradiction? -- Thekohser 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't read The Wrong Version. The talk page is not protected, you should have no difficulty with discussion there. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- In most cases, there actually is such a thing as the wrong version. This is one such case, and you chose to protect it. You did so minutes after the defamatory text was re-entered. I expected better from you. Obviously, no discussion will take place because the IRC gang is happy with the current situation. Guido den Broeder 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think you know what I chose, but please be aware that I simply protected the page in whatever state it was in at the time I noticed the edit warring. As to the "IRC gang" - I do not know who you're referring to, nor why "no discussion will take place." If you choose not to raise the issue on the talk page, that's fine & I cannot force you to do anything - but please know that edit warring is unproductive and will result in extended protection. I suggest you discuss the issue and come to some agreement. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is not what I am aware of. What I see is a protection immediately after the re-entry of a defamatory text, an administrative act that does not qualify as 'simple'. But if what you say is true, and I will assume good faith here, then that is not a good thing either. You are supposed to look at what's going on, rather than blindly protect. Guido den Broeder 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You come to that conclusion because you don't understand that I really don't care about the outcome - I do care about behaviour. Edit warring is not permitted for good reason; the page protection is to stop that and for no other reason. When (if - discussion seems to have been derailed) a consensus forms on what the page should say, I'll be happy to implement it and reduce or remove protection as appropriate. Until then — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Mike, but you can't judge behaviour if you don't know what it's all about. This attitude from administrators has made many good contributors leave Wikipedia. I don't like seeing it on meta as well. Guido den Broeder 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- You come to that conclusion because you don't understand that I really don't care about the outcome - I do care about behaviour. Edit warring is not permitted for good reason; the page protection is to stop that and for no other reason. When (if - discussion seems to have been derailed) a consensus forms on what the page should say, I'll be happy to implement it and reduce or remove protection as appropriate. Until then — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is not what I am aware of. What I see is a protection immediately after the re-entry of a defamatory text, an administrative act that does not qualify as 'simple'. But if what you say is true, and I will assume good faith here, then that is not a good thing either. You are supposed to look at what's going on, rather than blindly protect. Guido den Broeder 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think you know what I chose, but please be aware that I simply protected the page in whatever state it was in at the time I noticed the edit warring. As to the "IRC gang" - I do not know who you're referring to, nor why "no discussion will take place." If you choose not to raise the issue on the talk page, that's fine & I cannot force you to do anything - but please know that edit warring is unproductive and will result in extended protection. I suggest you discuss the issue and come to some agreement. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- In most cases, there actually is such a thing as the wrong version. This is one such case, and you chose to protect it. You did so minutes after the defamatory text was re-entered. I expected better from you. Obviously, no discussion will take place because the IRC gang is happy with the current situation. Guido den Broeder 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't read The Wrong Version. The talk page is not protected, you should have no difficulty with discussion there. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you see, we had sort of done that, and then a new gang of interlopers decided that they would set policy on IRC. It seems rather unfair that you would give credit to such a technique, while punishing my attempts to keep the discussion toward consensus moving on the talk page. Do you see the contradiction? -- Thekohser 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
<--outdent... Mike, we appear to have reached (unanimous) consensus on this matter, so if you'd like, you will unlock the content page now? Thanks. -- Thekohser 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is probably a joke, but it looks like you're well on your way to running out the clock on the protection, so I'll leave it as-is. Hopefully there won't be edit warring after that point. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] two accounts are NOT the same person
I am very unhappy that my account is being banned by unreaonable reasons and that is NOT the fact as what mentioned by user:cdip150. First of all, I do NOT know who is user:Akimotokenta. By the same time, as I edited since late July, 2006, why i need to create another account for me? Moreover, as I am the public relationship and liaison officer of Wikimedia Macau, do I need to take drug to myself? Do you agree that just because of the same idea or ieda and the use of supporting vote in my candidate will consider to the point that is controlled by me? In here, I totally disappoint to the unreasonable judgement. Finally, I would like to say that user:cdip150 always disagree with my editing and point of views, there may be benefit to him in order to 'prove' that I am not qualified in editing. --AG0ST1NH0 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The results I posted are based entirely upon technical evidence. That evidence may be misleading, or I may have made a mistake in collecting or interpreting it. Analysis of behavioural evidence falls to whoever blocked you. If they decided that you should be blocked on the basis of technical and/or behavioural evidence then you need to take it up with them. I have, however, re-opened that request on SRCU and asked that another steward re-do the check. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technical evidence is not a kind of fact and real and excuse to do so. I think that you too believe on the objective reasons in hours. Besides that, do not you think that what is the use for call you to check that and give the result as soon as possible by user:cdip150? Well, I welcome that you re-open the auditing, but I would like to say that I can confirm to you that the reasons are not real and not the facts. Do you think that idea and concept are the same by some/part of people will cause the to this matter? Well, my account is being banned and I hope you can assist me for this due to you made the wrong result on these two accounts. by the way, the decision is made to the affect on Chinese Wikimedia Conference which will be hosted in Macau since I receive an E-mail that user:akimotokenta says that he will not attend for the event due to this matter. In here, I hope the matter should be declear by you as soon as possible and both accounts will not be banned very soon. (Please forgive me if there is personal feeling in the message.)--AG0ST1NH0 16:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technical evidence is what I was asked for, and what I provided. Anything else is the responsibility of the sysop who placed the block. Please note that Thogo has come to the same conclusion with a high degree of confidence. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- i cannot believe that you can judge me since i did not do that before till now. i am totally disagree with the judgement forever with 'confirmed'. --AG0ST1NH0 13:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technical evidence is what I was asked for, and what I provided. Anything else is the responsibility of the sysop who placed the block. Please note that Thogo has come to the same conclusion with a high degree of confidence. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technical evidence is not a kind of fact and real and excuse to do so. I think that you too believe on the objective reasons in hours. Besides that, do not you think that what is the use for call you to check that and give the result as soon as possible by user:cdip150? Well, I welcome that you re-open the auditing, but I would like to say that I can confirm to you that the reasons are not real and not the facts. Do you think that idea and concept are the same by some/part of people will cause the to this matter? Well, my account is being banned and I hope you can assist me for this due to you made the wrong result on these two accounts. by the way, the decision is made to the affect on Chinese Wikimedia Conference which will be hosted in Macau since I receive an E-mail that user:akimotokenta says that he will not attend for the event due to this matter. In here, I hope the matter should be declear by you as soon as possible and both accounts will not be banned very soon. (Please forgive me if there is personal feeling in the message.)--AG0ST1NH0 16:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 反對無理指控
你好，本人是維基百科（中文版）用戶:akimotokenta（用戶ID:730303）。 本人剛才在維基百科時，不但得悉本人帳戶以「莫雖有」之名被遭到永久封禁外，本人也被指確認是用戶:Sdee的傀儡，並做出破壞。由於用戶:cdip150封禁本人，已向現向用戶:cdip150作出以下澄清：
- 本人和用戶:Sdee是不相識，何以構成傀儡呢？又者，假如本人和用戶:Sdee是認識的話，是不是因為這個關係要要封禁本人呢？
- 在封禁請求記錄中，是否用戶:cdip150不同意本人編輯而封禁本人帳戶？
- 本人在新條目推薦中投票並沒有違反投票準則，為何會禁成封禁理由？
- 本人被指為用戶:Sdee的傀儡是嚴重失實指控，冀望 閣下明暸。
對於是次封禁，本人覺得用戶:cdip150在維基百科沒有查明的情況下封禁本人是嚴重不友善的處理方法，冀望閣下還本人一個清白及重開帳戶。
編安。
秋本建太
二零零九年十一月十一日
- I'm sorry, I can't read this, and online translators butcher it. I'm having trouble finding someone to help me, but I will keep trying. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike I just read about that w:zh:User:Sdee's CU case and saw this so I just try to translate it. may not be accurate since I'm en-2 :P
- Hello. I'm the user of Wikipedia (Chinese Verson), Username: akimotokenta (User ID: 730303).
- I was just notified on Wikipedia that my account is not only infinitely blocked based on groundless reasons, but also said to be confirmed to be the sock puppet of user:Sdee and committed act of vandalism. Since User: Cdip150 (local admin @zhwp and the user who filed the CU request - note by Bencmq) blocked me I have clarified the following things to him/her:
- I don't know User:Sdee, how can it be a case of sockpuppeting? or, if I knew User:Sdee, should I be blocked because of this reason?
- In the Block Request record, did User:cdip150 blocked me because he/she did not agree with my edits?
- I voted in the DYK nomination page and I did not violate the voting policy, why should it be a reason of blocking?
- The accusation of my being user:Sdee's sockpuppet account is seriously inconsistent with fact. I hope You could understand this.
- Regarding this block, I think User:cdip150's action of blocking before Wikipedia has cleared up this issue was a very unfriendly approach, and I hope You could clear my name and reopen my account.
- Happy Editting.
- 秋本建太
- 2009-11-11
Regards, —Bencmq 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Bencmq! That's a huge help to me.
- Unfortunately, my answer to this is essentially what I said above: I simply examined the technical evidence and made a conclusion on that basis. Thogo re-checked, and came to the same conclusion. Any analysis of behavioural patterns which might confirm those findings, and whether blocks should be placed, falls to the local sysops. There is nothing I can do for you except tell you to contact the administrator who blocked you. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removing NOINDEX
Hey, Mike. Could you explain this edit of yours to my User_talk page? You can just reply here, I'll keep an eye out. -- Thekohser 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- My guess it that because an IP edited it, it may not have been to your approval. I'm sure Mike won't mind if you revert, if he was mistaken. Majorly talk 16:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- There were no results in Google, so I looked, saw it, and removed it. Is there some reason you want it not to be indexed? Of course, Majorly is correct: the edit is easily reverted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I have found that my pages on Wikimedia projects are often the target of unsubstantiated, disproportionately wild accusations about me, so I'd prefer not to have search engines crawling them, if possible. That was a pretty old edit that you sought to undo, on "my" Talk page. Seems a bit of an assumption for you to decide what I would want or not on a Talk page that I'd clearly maintained and participated in several times since that IP edit. Are you sure you're not sympathetic in some way to my adversaries on Meta? -- Thekohser 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- So re-add it. It became a moot point when I realized you didn't have talk page archives. Since you seem to be keeping a score, you seem to have forgotten who last unblocked you. It is sad that you have so many nemeses; nevertheless, I'll assuage your paranoia: I have no vendetta against you.
- However, let me be clear: I don't back-scratch, and I don't do cliques. Just because I unblocked doesn't mean I won't be the first sysop to re-block you when you cross the line. Just because I agree with you about GerardM's behaviour doesn't mean I won't be the first person to defend him against unreasonable criticism (I actually did both in a single edit). I will always be impartial, no matter who you are or what you've done, and I find suggestions to the contrary insulting to both you and me. I take integrity seriously in real life and online, so that is why it insults me. It insults you because you somehow do not realize what is obvious. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Duly noted. Mike, unfortunately, I am sort of "keeping score", because I've been unfairly treated so many times on Wikimedia projects. The score is one of the last objective ways that I can hold on to my grip of reality within the warped WikiUniverse of revenge. Is this really about building an encyclopedia? Modifying my listing as an available public speaker, as the result of a privately conspired discussion on a chat channel? Is that how the encyclopedia gets built? Is that how freely-licensed educational material gets distributed? Never mind that. I think you know the true answers to those questions, if you take integrity seriously. Let me ask this, instead. An easier question. Do you impartially feel that we have gained consensus on the Talk page of Public speakers? It appears that I have unanimous support (2-0) for my request to restore the page to the version just prior to the version you froze. -- Thekohser 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Almost nothing I do is about building an encyclopedia.
- No, I don't think there is a consensus. You seem to be missing an awful lot of input in your summation of what I will politely term a discussion (which, I think, is generous, given the theatrics). You should start by engaging Lar, Thogo, and Wutsje on why they think listing your status as a banned user is relevant and useful. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mike, we have asked often enough. It should be pretty clear by now that they don't have an answer. Guido den Broeder 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Duly noted. Mike, unfortunately, I am sort of "keeping score", because I've been unfairly treated so many times on Wikimedia projects. The score is one of the last objective ways that I can hold on to my grip of reality within the warped WikiUniverse of revenge. Is this really about building an encyclopedia? Modifying my listing as an available public speaker, as the result of a privately conspired discussion on a chat channel? Is that how the encyclopedia gets built? Is that how freely-licensed educational material gets distributed? Never mind that. I think you know the true answers to those questions, if you take integrity seriously. Let me ask this, instead. An easier question. Do you impartially feel that we have gained consensus on the Talk page of Public speakers? It appears that I have unanimous support (2-0) for my request to restore the page to the version just prior to the version you froze. -- Thekohser 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I have found that my pages on Wikimedia projects are often the target of unsubstantiated, disproportionately wild accusations about me, so I'd prefer not to have search engines crawling them, if possible. That was a pretty old edit that you sought to undo, on "my" Talk page. Seems a bit of an assumption for you to decide what I would want or not on a Talk page that I'd clearly maintained and participated in several times since that IP edit. Are you sure you're not sympathetic in some way to my adversaries on Meta? -- Thekohser 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- There were no results in Google, so I looked, saw it, and removed it. Is there some reason you want it not to be indexed? Of course, Majorly is correct: the edit is easily reverted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, why didn't you add noindex yourself? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think I did, Mike. -- Thekohser 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Originally, not today. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you meant, and my answer still applies. -- Thekohser 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for not playing dumb. It would reflect rather poorly on you if you were still logging out to make edits you didn't want attributed to your account. I'm sure you haven't done that, isn't that so? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be kind of dumb to try to misattribute edits with an IP address that I've myself identified as linked to me. Are we done now with this thread? I'd like to go back to being maligned by others on the Public speakers page who made their decisions off-site in IRC. -- Thekohser 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The word "still" was significant. I look forward to seeing progress in the consensus-building process. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- No such process is taking place, as predicted. Two familiar stalkers showed up and started some ugliness, that's pretty much it. Guido den Broeder 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The word "still" was significant. I look forward to seeing progress in the consensus-building process. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be kind of dumb to try to misattribute edits with an IP address that I've myself identified as linked to me. Are we done now with this thread? I'd like to go back to being maligned by others on the Public speakers page who made their decisions off-site in IRC. -- Thekohser 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for not playing dumb. It would reflect rather poorly on you if you were still logging out to make edits you didn't want attributed to your account. I'm sure you haven't done that, isn't that so? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you meant, and my answer still applies. -- Thekohser 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Originally, not today. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] rock-fotos.de
Hi Mike, according to this [1] you added this link to BL, but I can't find it there. See also User:COIBot/XWiki/bluesfotos.de and User:COIBot/XWiki/rock-fotos.de. Regards, Finn Rindahl 12:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what happened there... I assume it still needs to be added? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think both need to be added, but when seeing that you had marked it as added and that it still wasn't on the list I also wondered if it could have been delisted at some point. If not, I recommend adding both. Finn Rindahl 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ToTW
Sorry for late reply. I suggest to vote en:Cairo International Book Fair, en:SS St. Louis and others.--Flamelai 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can add your name in the "support" section for those pages on Translation_of_the_week/Translation_candidates then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
