User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

<older newer>

Deleted link

I sometimes access to a page to read something new. I noticed that you deleted a useful external link from that page. I can't understand why you did it.

You'll have to give me some context if you want a useful response.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Στον Mike.lifeguard που προστάτεψε τη Βικιπαίδεια από τον βανδαλισμό / To Mike.lifeguard who defended el-Wikipedia against vandalism

Σου απονέμω το αστέρι του προστάτη της Βικιπαίδειας για τη συμμετοχή σου στο καθάρισμα της Βικιπαίδειας από τον πρόσφατο βανδαλισμό / I hereby award you the defender barnstar for your contribution against the latest vandalism.--FocalPoint 08:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey, there's a letter for you from a far far away Soviet Russia: there's a problem, coz my IP adress was banned (because of dynamical IP adresses). Does wikipedia have any features to differ between spammers and me?

You are spamming - that is why I blocked you (not because you have a dynamic IP). You need to stop adding links.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta admins and discussions

Hi there. There has been mention of a meta blacklisting and admin actions (from January 2009) at a current request for arbitration over on en-Wikipedia. The request is titled "Abd and JzG". I've asked there whether I've found the right links to the meta discussions and actions mentioned at the request. If I have the right person (I think you closed the discussion about whether to add the website in question to the blacklist), then this is a courtesy notification so that you are aware of this. There was also an earlier RfC, but I don't know if you were aware of that. If you could help fill out some of the background to this, either at the request or when the case opens, that would be great. Thanks. I've left a duplicate of this note at your en-Wikipedia user talk page. Carcharoth 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)



--Chico 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

"I'm not also a checkuser here". Don't you mean "I'm also a checkuser here", or did I misread it? GT5162 (我的对话页) 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that "not" was leftover from another sentence. I'll change it now. Thanks for catching it  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert

Regarding this revert, what reason did it use that for? "Wikimedia projects" can be used anywhere, and it does not need an automatically changing magic word. It is a term that can be used on any Wikimedia project. A more detailed explanation of the revert would be very much appreciated, as I do not understand. Thanks. -- IRP 02:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is written that way so it is localized.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Bot


Could you please add simple.wikibooks into the global bot list. Per local discussion we decided to accept global bots:

Or isn't this the right place? and can you point me in the direction of the place where I need to go to make a request.

Best regards, Huib talk 04:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally Pathoschild is the person to talk to about that, but I guess Laaknor took care of it?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Global blocking

Thank you for that. I can guarantee the vandalism will stop from this IP address. I myself don't want to get blocked, as I'm an infrequent editor, more of a lurker. Not that I'm not interested in editing, I tend to do it less often than I used to. I'm really sorry and I've no doubt the vandals will come back from another IP address. Sorry for all the disruption they caused.

Apparently you blocked the whole Chicago Public Library system from editing for the weekend.

Editing from a proxie to let you know about this. Amerique 19:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fixed, thanks!Amerique 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Details would help  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello sir. im web development...

have made the list my site is a site similar to I'm having problems , appreciate if you please help

about the site's past ( &

These domains were both spammed cross-wiki, and were blacklisted for that reason. If you want to make a request to have them removed, you can post on WM:SPAM, but I doubt the request would be granted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


thank you for replying;the url of blog is ;it still pops up in the google search. i would be grateful if you could me solve this problem. --Genealogievriend 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears per this automated report. —Dferg (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I am shocked to read this report and I feel that my privacy is violated.I feel that I am being treated unfairly, since I don't feel I have done something wrong; I just started blogging about genealogy (my passion), and wanted to add some interesting information to wiki; I am not asking for money, or selling illegal stuff or anything. what have i done? and how do I end this stuff? --Genealogievriend 22:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how your privacy could possibly be violated here... you are publishing your edits freely on a public website. Please don't use our wikis to promote your blog - linking to blogs is almost never appropriate, and even less so when it is your own. If that report is appearing in search results then we have a robots.txt/noindex problem, which should be looked at.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you explanation. I don't really see how I am "promoting my blog" here. If that was my intention, why would I then not put a link to my blog on my Dutch wiki userpage ( I haven't. I have contributed an etymology of the term "genealogy" to the Dutch-wiki entry on Genealogy, and referenced my own blog (which contains a more detailed discussion of the etymology); what's problem? similarly, I have added 2 links on the ancestry of H.M. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (Dutch wiki); one link to the official page of the royal family and one to a piece on my blog, which in detail discusses the ancestry of QUeen Beatrix; so, i don't really see how i am allegedly "promoting blog"? And why would I "promote my blog"? I just like blogging, and writing good pieces about genealogy, and if I feel that they contain information that is missing on wiki, i add a link. and if someone thinks the additions i made don't belong there, fine as well. However, you will see that none of my dutch wiki-entries have been altered; so i presume I am not the only one who thinks that there is some use to my additions.
I feel like this ridiculous report is trying to stigmatize me as some internet con artist or a criminal; and the threatening terms "blacklised" etc are really stigmatizing and disproportionate. --Genealogievriend 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice anyone using the words "internet con artist" or "criminal" nor anyone threatening to blacklist your blog. I'd be interested to know who is threatening you so I can tell them to stop.
As for the links themselves, I've removed them. Using a blog as a reference isn't ok because it's not a reliable source. I've removed the links which weren't used as references because they don't meet our requirements for external links: see w:nl:Wikipedia:Wanneer extern linken.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations (and you link on external links); I perceive it the fact that when i google my own blog, and some kind of nonsense about "Spam Blacklist" pops up, as threatening, intimidating, and I feel that it puts me in the same category as con artists and criminals. I don't see why this still shows up in google? I feel that I haven't done anything wrong, I don't feel i belong on a "Spam Blacklist", and since you believed you thought it was necessary to remove my links ( ok, after reading the link on requirements for external links, i can see your logic), why the fdoes this show up on google? try it for yourself. --Genealogievriend 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added some stuff to robots.txt so that should disappear when the search engines next index the site.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your help with the best practices series! --Frank Schulenburg 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem; thank you for providing the impetus.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuserblock needing review.

Hello Mike, a user caught by a {{checkuserblock}} is asking to be unblocked:rangeblock and IP who request unblock. Note that I've added the template in both talks to facilitate the maintenance. Thanks, —Dferg (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacebirdy reviewed the block. No help needed now. Thanks anyway and best regards, —Dferg (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)