User talk:Mike.lifeguard

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on this wiki.

Archives

---

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

es.wikinews

This [1] is a mistake. It isn't a vandalism. Regards!--Esteban 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I simply hit the wrong button. I thought I had hit ESC in time to stop it, but clearly not :(  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Global block

Hello mister Mike.lifeguard! I was blocked on all wikis ! Why? I only added some external links..wich are necessary. Still now i've had problems only with ROMANIAN operators who discriminate the Armans/ Macedon-armans. (Njirlu 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Romanians operators like ADIJAPAN delete constantly external links and bibiography at articles regard macedon-arman people. In romania is silent genocide to this ethnicity... Please onblock me!!

Thank you ! (Njirlu 09:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Mister MIKE  !!!!!!! Please tell me if you understood what I told to you! This is the Romanian genocide to Macedon-arman ethnicity !!! I only added external links about MAcedon-arman people, to all wikis because those site.s must be there ! Thank you very much!! (193.200.200.64 12:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Hello, spam is spam, and you were spamming, and then blocked. You should stop now, or the domain(s) will be blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Since I was gone for the past four days, I was unable to withdraw from my own RfA here at Meta because of extraneous problems at home, so I would be very happy if you could add a note to my closed RfA stating that I withdraw from it. Thank you, Razorflame 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Razorflame 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You rat bastard!

LOL. I go to use my own damn URL shortener on enwn today, to find out it has been black listed. There's 82 records, all of them mine. Really god damn hilarious. Yes, I see you're comment about "Dont complain to me" yada yada. Not so much a complaint as I just had to come over and say something. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razorflame's RfA

Hi. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you protected this RfA? AFAIK, RfAs here aren't protected when closed, so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Force of habit from Commons. Fixed now.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible open proxies

Hi, Mike.

Sorry to bother you here but I couldn't find any steward availabe in IRC.

Could you please check the following IP addresses for open proxies?

• 66.197.225.86
• 75.125.163.146

The same banned user is using these IP addresses today to avoid the block at pt.wikt. Thanks, Malafaya 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Both blocked.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

nikmix

Hi! why is my discussion page deleted? i've created an accound a few hours ago. i don't realy understand what is going on! 91.140.28.181 08:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what page or account you're referring to. Can you provide more information?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Mujeeb B.Ibrahimkhil

mr. Mike hello again! Thanks for the explainations I had no clue about the informations you mentioned,therfore I would kindly request you to remove the entire edits from the recent change's place , especialy our conversation so others could keep work on it, I will keep inform you after now if there wwould be anything in future. thanks alot for the help.

Sorry, I cannot remove edits from w:ps:Special:RecentChanges, nor would I if I could.

At present, I'm not prepared to reinstate your administrator access without a consensus among the pswiki community to do so. I cannot find any community discussion about giving you admin tools. Could you please show me where that discussion is?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the week

Hello, do you like to vote on Translation of the week/Translation candidates, thanks.--Flamelai 07:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just sign your name in the section you want to vote for.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Mike, I understand your decession and will try my best in the future and work as good as I can for the community. Stay in touch! --Wikisidd 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Titleblacklist replaces username blacklist?

Could you show me where it was announced? If then, is username blacklist usable? Tân (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not announced, it was a tech decision. Check mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist for how to block usernames.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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：

1. 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？
2. 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？
3. 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？
4. 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)