Jump to content

User talk:WizardOfOz

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 months ago by WizardOfOz in topic E moj Wizarde



User_talk:Abd#Block – Abd has some unaddressed concerns about the block you placed him under. --Michaeldsuarez 02:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bumping. --Michaeldsuarez 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
My statement is in the block reason and explained on the RfH page. I saw his concerns, but he needs to use the template so other sysop can review if they disagree. But thanks for the notification. --WizardOfOz talk 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Can you please repeat your comment on his talk page so that he knows that he has to use Template:Unblock? --Michaeldsuarez 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fell free to link it there. --WizardOfOz talk 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I left a note. I'll try to notify him on the Wikipedia Review. Thanks for clearing things up. --Michaeldsuarez 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sporna slika


Heh, znam, i to je najgore od svega. Ja sam se svo vreme nadao da će konačno shvatiti i da će ispraviti svoju brljotinu, pa da ne moram da menjam glas. Ispostavilo se da je ovoga puta u pitanju Srbija, zemlja u kojoj trenutno živim, ali to uopšte nije razlog mog protivljenja. Čak ne zagovaram nijednu od tih slika (bliži sam onome što je Bokica predložio), ali je de facto poražavajuće da kandidat za stjuarda ni posle tri dana nije shvatio suštinu i ispravio tu relativno jednostavnu grešku. mickit 13:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Držim fige :) Najveći problem je ako nastavi to da radi i sa drugim slikama. Ali, videćemo. mickit 13:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Vidim iz komentara na njegovoj stranici za razgovor (koristim GoogleTranslate) da neki misle da je po sredi prosto nacionalizam. Ne znam samo čiji, imajući u vidu strukturu onih koji su glasali protiv ili bili neutralni (a glasali su tako zbog brlje koju je napravio). Dobro, ima tu i nacionalizma, verovatno i inata, ali opet maše suštinu. mickit 14:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

JSSX(x) / Mugginsx(x)


Hey Wizard, see my comment here. This no doubt applies to all candidacies where Marek69 voted. Jafeluv 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, didn´t saw that Marek has changed the nicks. --WizardOfOz talk 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sh wiki


I left you a message here--Antidiskriminator 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply



Which is whjat I hoped Nemo would do - instead he waited several months and then decided none of the edits met his standards <g>. Note my specific use of the article talk page etc, and his specific non-use thereof. Cheers - but I suppose the "wrong version" curse strikes again. Collect 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Trustful user


Just to tell, if im a good editor, do I need to request for premissions such as adminship, basic needs (rollbacker, reviewer, autopatrolled) or breaucrat on Meta. If you say no tell the reason and what time I should apply for request approximately. Please reply at my talk page for the results. I applyied for rollback rights here and it was unscuessful for me. What should I do? Help please. Note: reply this situation to the talk page. --Mohamed Aden Ighe 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nemo bis


Without any consensus has gone and restored the old and not-consensus version of the DICK essay. I am not a sysop, and am unable to correct his misuse of sysop powers to make his own favoured version "official." At least I would think that a sysop using sysop powers to make his own edits is improper. Cheers. Collect 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I need to second this. He made a highly controversial edit under full protection. You have asked him to revert it. I have asked him to revert it. And yet it still stands. Please revert it as soon as is convenient to you, and ask him to take his proposed edits to the talk page.--Jimbo Wales 23:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Abd re: email


Hi! I have changed your block of User:Abd to allow his use of email. I'm not aware of it being misused by him on meta and the enwiki block has not gotten it disabled. Feel free to change it back if you have evidence of its misuse. N.B.: this would not be wheel-warring as you have my blessing to restore it. Regards, fr33kman 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

New unified design of Bosnian Main Page - need your help


Dear colleague! Please help us for transfer Bosnian Main Page (Početna strana) to new unified design! Going to Template:Other languages/Template:Main Page and clicking on the relevant red link and translating that. Next step - edit every section with similar way. After finished need replace text in Početna strana to transcluding of "Main Page/bs" (as in Russian). Thanks in advance ;) --Kaganer 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You help us? --Kaganer 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
List of pages (all links open with "preload" text):
--Kaganer 02:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
All fixed, Thanks! --Kaganer 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ima, kako da nema


To što je netko nešto skratio, to ti ne znači puno. Ostali će se referencirati na to, pa će mi citirati onu poruku u kome mi se govori 'Dovidjenja'.. -- Bugoslav (talk) 17:46, 2. XI. 2011. (UTC)

  • P.S. Valjda im i boja smeta. :-) -- Bugoslav (talk) 17:46, 2. XI. 2011. (UTC)

The problem resolved


Regarding [1] After making "registered only" the vandalism stopped. Thanks for reaching. Ganesh J. Acharya 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have some serious explaining to do


I know for a fact that someone has deemed File:Mountain Parkway - Hacker Valley Kiosk.JPG a copyright vio, but it was in my eye copyright fraud. There was several similar images that weren't deemed copyright vios, and why was this one singled out, and don't try to pull the odl "Circumventing block" routine because thats a BOGUS claim. To prove that image is not a copyright vio, here is the Metadata from my original image:

Model: KODAK EASYSHARE C183 Digital Camera
Orientation: 1
X Resolution: 480 (Units)
Y Resolution: 480 (Units)
Resolution Unit: inch
Date and time of image creation: 2011:01:04 08:34:09
Exposure Time: 12500/1000000 (sec)
F number: 46/10
Exposure Program: Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings: 160
Exif Version: 2.21
Date and time (original): 2011:01:04 08:34:09
Date and time (digitized): 2011:01:04 08:34:09
Components Configuration: Y,Cb,Cr
Shutter Speed Value: 633 (APEX)
Aperture Value: 440 (APEX)
Brightness Value: 50 (APEX)
Exposure Bias Value: 0 (APEX)
Max Aperture Value: 440 (APEX)
Metering Mode: Pattern
Light Source: Unknown
Flash: Other
Focal Length: 137 (mm)
FlashPix Version: 1.00
Color Space: sRGB
Pixel X Dimension: 2880
Pixel Y Dimension: 2160
Exposure Index: 160/1
Sensing Method: One-chip color area sensor
File Source: DSC
cene Type: 1
Custom Rendered: 1
Exposure Mode: 0
White Balance: 0
Digital Zoom Ratio: 0/10
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 76
Scene Capture Type: 0
Gain Adjustment: 1
Contrast: 0
Saturation: 0
Sharpness: 0
Subject Distance Range: 3

The weight of evidence is clearly against you and wikimedia. 15:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

All of those data can´t be seen in your uploaded picture because it is a cropped version. And if I remember well, you´ve claimed that you have make this pic with older cam and before 2005 :D The date in those data above is 2011:01:04 08:34:09. So please stop be boring that kind. --WizardOfOz talk 15:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Bull, that image wasn't the one that I'm talking about the one that you are talking about is file:Mountain Parkway- Hacker Valley Kiosk.JPG, an entirely diffrent image. The one that i'm prostesting the copyright about is as described above, and uncropped. 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Described, but not linked to the image where those data can be seen. Posting some data without the image where those are implemented through the cam is without sense. --WizardOfOz talk 16:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

...As is deleting a image thats not a copyright vio, which was the fact in both cases. 10:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?


To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس

Alixafar 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but this is something that the community should decide. --WizardOfOz talk 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

not log in


Hello WizardOfOz, I hear there is someone who has an account named Erik Evrest can not log in and an admin says that there is a block. Instead of accusing, but I think it has something to do with you blocking his account in the meta. If not, please find out / researched whether there is something odd.--Erik FestMan 12:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but i was inactive for few weeks. Perhaps a link? --WizardOfOz talk 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply



Do you think I should go for it? --SavoRastko 21:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but I was a while away from wiki, so I don´t know what you are talking about. If it is about your block on hr.wiki, it should be your decision. What I think is not that relevant as I´m blocked too on that project. --WizardOfOz talk 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply



As requested. You have messages on my en.wiki talk page. Danger 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply


You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, WizardOfOz. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

notification of Gwen Gale


Just for the record, I informed Gwen Gale when I noticed Mbz1's RfC (she posted a link to it at an off-wiki web forum) and found that there was no notification made. Also for the record, I have been a frequent critic of Mbz1's Wikipedia activities and honestly find it appealing that it is being allowed to continue on Meta. Both the RfC and whatever this spam to enwiki Arb members is about is creating a rather disturbing portrait of obsession and stalking by Mbz1 of Gwen Gale. I'm honestly not all that familiar about Meta operations and organization, but is there somewhere a discussion can be had about this? It's gotta stop. Tarc 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

And again Tarc is trying to sweep this under the rug rather than provide evidence explaining or contradicting Mbz1's point. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I told you before, I will not engage in a rebuttal of Mbz1's "evidence" (the quotes are intentional) against Gwen Gale, as I feel the entire process itself...coming to meta when one has lost the debate at another project...is tainted. That is for the subject of the flawed RfC to do if she chooses...though how she was supposed to do this at all when it fell to 3rd parties to send notifications is beyond me. Let me ask you this; if Mbz1 is simply concerned about Gwen's alleged administrative abuses, why the long sections at the beginning discussing per-administrative activities? Including discussions about Gwen's real-life identity and prior accounts? Stuff like that makes this personal rather than an airing of a concern of admin abuse. Tarc 16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, that last one is worth responding, but, if I may, I'd like to use tarc's own words to respond it please. "That's bullshit, the lack of due diligence would not magically absolve the person of the crime committed. Yes, we as a community should have pressed him for an identity reveal at the RfA, but the fact remains that a bad editor snuck through with a new face to become an administrator. Regardless of how we, collectively, arrived at that point, it must be rectified." This post with the edit summary "bullshit" was made by tarc less than a week ago at RFC concerning another admin on English wiki. --Mbz1 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Mbz, your command of ad hominems and non-sequitur oriented attacks is nearing legendary status. If you wish to come discuss the Fae/Ash situation, a user who faked a clean start in order to avoid sanctions regarding BLP transgressions, then by all means do so. That has nothing to do with discussing your atrocious and pathetic stalking of Gwen Gale across the WMF. Stick to the topic, if you would. Tarc 17:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
tarc calls its own post that I quoted "ad hominems and non-sequitur oriented attacks"? Interesting!
Stick to the point? OK. I described Gwen Gale's "per-administrative activities" because Gwen Gale made false and half-truth (that are even worse than false) statements about these activities in her RfAs, and once again quoting tarc "the problem is the deception caused by the person behind the administrator account. " Would have Gwen Gale passed her RFA, if the community knew that she wrote two articles about not-notable herself, that she violated topic ban on a few occasions,while claiming in her RFA she did not, that she added external links to her bio, the bio she wrote herself at feministsf.net to a few wikipedia articles and so on, and so on. --Mbz1 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

WizardOfOz, I apologize for using your talk like this. I will not feed the troll at your talk page any longer. If you have questions about RFC you are welcome to my talk or the RFC itself. Thanks.--Mbz1 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • It is getting more and more difficult to deal with Mbz1's psychosis here; I had no involvement with Gwen Gales' RfA or with her prior accounts, Mbz1's "but other stuff" argument fails to impress. I will also note that Gwen's RfA stated up-front who her prior account was; this was taken into consideration anfd accepted by the Wikipedia community. As I have said several times in several places now, I have yet to see a justifiable reason as to why a Meta RfC was created for an administrator issue, if there actually is one at all, in one project (en.wiki). That this user is blocked form en.wiki should not be a free license to circumvent the dispute resolution there; Arbcom can easily be e-mailed, and this user could be unblocked solely to participate in a case if accepted.
  • Honestly at this point I am tempted to employ Meta's deletion process on this fraudulent RfC and let the chips fall where they may. Tarc 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
So ladies, if you have nothing against, this is my talk page and not a forum. Please discuss your points somewhere else. I just provided a notification of an RfC to an user who is accused. As a sysop of this project, I can only tell that we are the only project where a crosswiki conversation and perhaps a solution of such things is possible. If someone is not heard at one project, it´s his right to come to meta, the coordination project and to make a RfC. So please stop this conversation and use your own talk pages. Thanks. --WizardOfOz talk 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The problem is, Mbz1 was heard, but ruled against. Many times. And last I checked I'm not a lady, so please take care with your gender specifics in the future, bud. Tarc 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Tarc is far from being neutral in this. It would be easy to demonstrate that Tarc is quite a wiki-warrior when it comes to trying to indeff editors who are on the 'I' side of the I/P dispute articles, and likewise at defending from blocks all those on the 'P' side. Also Tarc's psychological diagnosis of Mbz1 as having a "psychosis" is so problematic that it might, itself, be considered grounds for a block; because it is merely using psychological terminology to make a personal attack. (As is obvious psychology is a field concerned with healing, and using psychological terminology to rough up a user is deplorable.) Malcolm Schosha 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the intrusion on your talk page, WizardOfOz. Could, perhaps, this whole discussion could be move to Wikimedia Forum? Malcolm Schosha 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply



Since I was personally involved I blocked him for a short period, feel free to manage the case better than I can do now :D --Vituzzu 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Prekmurian


Dear WizardOfOZ! The request for the ISO code of Prekmurian is rejected. I have here a request for the Prekmurian Wikipedia. What to do? There is no code, but the Prekmurian language is actively used language in Slovenia and Hungary in the books and Press. The wikimedia will not accept this? As few German dialects have wikipedia (Palatinate German, Bavarian, Saxon, etc.) Doncsecztalk 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but you should ask Language committee in this case. --WizardOfOz talk 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In passing


I fully agree with the removal of the "rfd" tag, I think Micki has also removed it before. Best --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not an RFC


Thats not an RFC, it is an attack page create in retaliation by a banned user. Let the discussion continue. Jehochman 11:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

FH on Bebblebrox's block


See [2]. Courcelles 21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ruhig Blut!

Tee trinken
Tee trinken

"I strongly suggest that you consult other admins before making blocks of this nature in future, otherwise you may find yourself without tools at all." schrieb Peter Symonds, was (wie er auch im IRC m. E. klargemacht hat) wohl heißen sollte "Vorsicht, wenn du so weiter machst, und mehr Leute denken, deine Aktionen wären falsch, könnte das zu einer Abwahl führen". Sei so gut, hör auf Trijnstel und ignorier diesen Konflikt mit enwiki-Benutzern, die offensichtlich die Meta-Vorgehensweisen noch nicht durchrungen haben. Ich fände es wirklich schade, wenn du auf jetzt Grund dieser überhitzten Diskussion(en) hier aufhören würdest. --MF-W 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply



See here for an explanation. Trijnstel 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not really sure what to say


I'm coming back online after a night sleep and trying to catch up. I am deeply sad to see what seems to have driven you this far. I have not always agreed with you but unlike some idiots who have arrived recently no disagreement has soured any working relationship here. I believe your stand in attempting to maintain neutrality as far as possible in the highly provocative situation does you credit. I hope you will allow time to go by and return (if I missed something so far apologies). --Herby talk thyme 09:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mail too --Herby talk thyme 13:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply



E, hajd se smiri. Ima toliko toga raditi, da je glupo da se sad samoizoluješ. Baci mi na mejl šta je bilo. --Millosh 11:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

A mentor for Cekli829


His heart and contributions are in the right place. Can you think of someone who could help him be a good global sysop? SJ talk | translate   07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

By self-request WizardOfOz is unable to edit due to a locked global account. I am able to mentor global sysop candidates if needed. Best regards, fr33kman 07:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
(I know, I am hoping very much he returns; I already miss seeing his contributions.) Your help in this case would also be most welcome, though someone with familiarity with a Turkic language would be ideal. SJ talk | translate  
And Cekli829 is blocked for 15 days because of spamming random people to vote for him. --Millosh 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your RfA


Your withdrawal was the correct decision, and will go some distance toward rebuilding my trust in you and your reactions. I'm certain it will do the same for other community members as well. Thank you for that. --Philippe (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your RfA


Hiya WizardOfOz, I just saw your RfA. I have been busier than usual lately, and missed it completely. I saw that you withdrew it and what others had to say. I just wanted to tell you, you would have had my support, even if it wouldn't have changed the final decision. I know a little more than others concerning what was going on last year, but it doesn't mean that the points others raised are not without merit. It is good that you withdrew yourself, but please don't be disheartened by it. You're a great community member, nothing will change the good work you did. Just give it some time, and let me know the next time you plan on running again, I will be happy to nominate you in a few months. Keep up the good work and have a cookie! ;) Theo10011 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply



Molim te, pomozi mi povodom ovoga. Ogroman broj medija je objavio da je Kemal umro, i to sam i ispratio. 6 meseci, bez e-mail opcije i zaključana strana. Nakon svega, jasno ti je da ne postoji ni jedan razlog za blokadu. Molim te pomozi mi. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hope you are fine


Hiya. It's been ages since I saw you on Meta. I recently ran across some old comments from you, and it made me think of everything else. It's been such a long time, I really hope you are doing fine. Feel free to drop me an email or a message. I had hoped everything had been going Ok since we talked about last year, but now that I think back, I'm not so certain. Take care of yourself! Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

right to vanish


Please my delete user and talk pages?--Nicolescherzingerfan (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your post


The problem has already been addressed by another admin. Thank you. --M/ (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

E moj Wizarde


Pa AnToni je taj koji briše citate jer se ne slažu sa njegovim privatnim političkim uvjerenjima (simpatizerstvo sistema iz doba SFRJ). Citati bi trebalo da imaju svoja pravila, tj. bez obzira o kome se radi od citiranih, uz poštivanje relevantnosti. Ne kontam kako ste svi tako pali pod priču AnTonija, valjda što je birokrata pa ima kod nas u kulturi taj neki osjećaj inferiornosti u odnosu na ljude na funkciji. Elem, kod citata na en wikiquote postoji na većini članaka sekcija “Drugi o njemu”, a ovaj bi da se to obriše. 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prijavi se pa mozemo razgovarati, ovako nema smisla da gubim vrijeme na jednu IP adresu. WizardOfOz talk 22:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply