User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 20

<older newer>

System76 says Thank-you!

On behalf of System76, Inc, I would like to extend a deep thank-you to you for helping to remove spam from our wiki, knowledge76.com. We are currently working on ways to prevent spam from occuring before it happens, until such time, you have our gratitiude!Isantop 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I did email you (and maybe left some notes on the wiki) about how best to do that. Feel free to email me if you guys need help. I do know a little bit about MediaWiki and how to run it :)  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RCC

Hope you can come to RoCoCo so I can meet you in person! -Pete F17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but it is pretty far. I'd be more likely to go for Wikimania... but we'll see how it goes, maybe I'll have some time off for RoCoCo :)  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SBHandler

Hi, in case you didn't notice, SBHandler now uses the API for the diff. --Erwin 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexy! I'll test it at some point soon. Thanks!  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reason of Blacklisting

Hi Mike,

I was browsing over the net and found you have added my website tutorialspoint.com in blacklist because I posted links to dzone.com. What I understand dzone.com is a website to share new links. So whenever I'm writing any tutorial I'm adding it at dzone.com, so do you think its wrong??/ I did not see any logic why my site has been given a category of BLACKLIST where as this is educational site which is helping guys around to learn new technologies.

Need your kind attendtion on this matter....

Kind Regards Mohtashim

Sorry, you'll need to bring this up at WM:SPAM.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This does not sound healthy...because you are the one who blocked this site that's why I'm requesting you to look into it. Is it dzone.com part of wikipedia or any of its subsdiaries? If not then I would like to have a justification for naming tutorialspoint a BLACKLIST site because enetered my urls in dzone.com. I would also like to bring Ross attention on this who is webmaster for dzone.com if he does not have an problem with any of the urls posted on his site then how come one wikipedia moderator taking negative action on a site.

Mohtashim

Please see Talk:Spam_blacklist#tutorialspoint.com.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mike but I really did not understand the link you have given. Kindly give a bit clue about what exactly is this ?

Thanks for your support.

I'm showing you where you can find information about your request. I moved it to the right page for you  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

deferred

[1]  Deferred to local spanking? LOL Finn Rindahl 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My first draft was quite a bit more ... colourful :D  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  22:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

logo ang and sq wikibooks

File:Wikibooks-logo-ang.svg and File:Wikibooks-logo-sq.svg. Well I have tried to search on their ang wikipedia, in order to make the good caption, perhaps I need someone review for this one... Otourly 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect the slogans need to be changed...  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  09:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All of blocked users today!

Please do logs. Got for funny. ElectricFlashes 08:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

presumptiousness

Excuse me??? Seb az86556 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

so syst.discr. o/wt=ok?:0

butic,i"choos"mydisabilty[quot=varies en.wt-ns---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you already know I don't think so. I think some of the stuff directed at you is pretty despicable. On the other hand, they have the right to be treated with respect as well. While I don't think you should be blocked, you need to understand that they feel, with some justification, that your attitude isn't conducive to a healthy community. Clearly, you're being treated unfairly by some people. But the justification given for that block is your conduct, not your disability. Now, we could discuss how much of that is true - I think people are probably frustrated by the difficulty of communication, and that may well have had some influence in the decision (especially given some of what was said about/to you). But what I think doesn't much matter, since I can't override that community's decision. It is up to that community to decrease or remove your block, and while I can perhaps help you to get them to listen, that's about all I can do.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

1. iREACTDgenstde namcalin[mainly afte-blok/email-wich=usd as'andl genstme[av email blokd?noprob
2. wt=not wmf-proj boundby wmf[+society i/wich=embeded]ruls?
3. otheppl cald[uponme providinlinks/difs]wt=toxic atmsfr+goin on4 1.5yrs now[blok=sec.importns,wt=UNhelthy=mainprob.-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 05:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't know the history of this dispute, so I only have limited insight here. If you want the block lifted, speaking to me about it is useless. I cannot unblock you. You need to deal with the community that blocked you, though I don't know if they'll be interested in hearing from you on this. I think both you and they need to realize that you've done wrong, and endeavour to change that. Take the high road  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

meta=not ovesite proj.gunrong??-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordination! Not oversight (or at least, not that kind of oversight).  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

then hu is resp4such oversightpl?-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 09:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. Individual wikis are independent. There are some things that are binding (CU, privacy, and licensing policies for example) , but this isn't one of them.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  15:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

tolratDISCRIM=putinWMFi/hazard-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to lump this all together as discrimination. You did say some hurtful things too - whether you think it was justified or not. From their point of view, they're simply keeping a rude person from disrupting their community. I happen to think that they've gone quite overboard, but I cannot tell them what to do in this case. You should try to speak with that community about this, not me.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ivpointed2CONTXT=partoFAIR/DUEprocedur&btw,hurtful things like/difs??~indefsven70blok oct08>WHER=alegd disruptivnes??[likmy"rudnes"i/broad unsubstantiatd"comunity"statmnts??[butnote ima"vandl"2coz ofmydisability(c usr史凡）&ur UNwarndblok ofme@stwrds/irc4me pointinoutSTWRDRUDNES]

• wt=defactoCLOZDCLUB[fe last1/2YR>10,000(sic!)INDEFBLOKS],indefians w/wmf-setup-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm just going by what I see in the community discussions. That's what they claim. Whether it is true or not, that is the rationale. You need to address that with the community that blocked you - not with me. As I said previously, I cannot overrule them, and I cannot tell them what to do. If you initiate a dialogue, and you or they want to have a third party involved, then we can talk about it. But until that happens, I can't do much of anything for you.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Message

You have a message at the Wikimedia Forum, regarding the recent change to Vector. Best wishes. Immunize 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there's no point in even discussing it until you have evidence  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

en.wikinews OS matter

Hi. My Internet connection failed at the most unfortunate moment. I am now using my mobile and therefore can't reconnect to IRC. The page now has a red link, so thanks! As for the other two pages I asked about, I'm assuming that you don't intend to suppress them? That should be fine, actually. Again, thanks for your help! Benny the mascot 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Aset_Ka

Please see the discussion page Woopon 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalizmë

[2]

Hey boy, this edition was not vandalizmë! Silly boy. Pay attention at what you do, bastard. --94.110.155.33 15:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You should stop vandalising.  — mike@meta:~$  15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy-handedness and bias at Talk:Spam blacklist

This is not concerning any current discussion, but something from last year that I reread just now and still makes me angry. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-10#sulekha.com. Why did you make me go through so much trouble for so many hours (days)? When I said "mostly legitimate uses, and hardly any spam" and even "I cannot find any link that could be classified as spam", why did you refuse to believe me? (Even the non-legitimate uses were not spam!) More importantly, if some useful website gets erroneously put on the spam blacklist as happened here, does it take so much effort by some unconnected user to convince overlords like you? What about the harm you caused by causing the links to be removed from other wikis for years — did you ever go to all those wikis and restore them? I'm still hurt by the way this issue was treated and ignored, and what it must mean for others in similar situations. Is it normal here to dismiss whatever users say, and go by your own biases? Shreevatsa 00:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You're upset that we don't blindly say "yes" to every request to remove a domain from the blacklist? You're upset that we actually require some evidence that doing so will benefit the projects? I have to assume I've misunderstood you - otherwise, what you've said here would show a startlingly brazen willingness to allow disruption of our wikis.

On how the system works: We rely heavily on a network of contributors who go to great lengths to provide us with accurate information about spamming on our nearly 800 wikis. We miss a lot of spam, and we're working on improving detection rates. We also sometimes mis-categorize what's going on, as happened in this case. However, I don't see that what's happened there is somehow that your concerns were dismissed out-of-hand. Based on the information available at the time, you wanted us to remove a domain that was part of a huge spam ring. When you showed evidence that that was incorrect, the domain was removed. Seems straightforward and reasonable to me.

 — mike@meta:~$  00:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm upset that you seem to require less evidence before adding something to the blacklist than removing it. Obviously I don't expect you to say "yes" on the first request, and wait for an explanation. So your first reply ("this was blacklisted due to…") is perfectly ideal. But even after a reasonable explanation is given, if you refuse to take it seriously, what should one conclude? I told you: "if you look at the actual spamsearch results for sulekha.com, you will see that most (all?) of the links are not adsense spam, but at most unreliable sources". I also said "Looking more closely, I cannot find any link that could be classified as spam". I also said "The report doesn't come with the dates when the links were inserted into the articles, but is quite likely that many of the links were in fact added to articles through the normal process (i.e., by article-writers and not by spammers)". So yes, I am upset by the fact that even after all this pleading, even though taking a careful look would have confirmed these assertions in general, your second reply after that (and after several days), ignores all this and simply says:

"Looking at User:COIBot/LinkReports/sulekha.com, I don't see the "mostly legitimate uses, and hardly any spam" - thus  Declined again."

This is distressing, because you did not respond or even acknowledge any of my concerns, and there is no indication you actually looked at the link report. To me, the link report shows quite clearly that the added links — several by whitelisted users, added over the course of several years, and not in any "spree" — were not spam, and mostly added exactly in the manner I described (by article writers). So how can you claim to have looked at the list, and perfunctorily dismiss everything that has been said? You did not even say whether you disbelieved my claims that they were not spam — you simply acted as if they were not worth replying to, and even falsely claimed to have evidence from the very list that showed you were wrong. If you were unwilling to spend the effort to take a careful look, and had said "this evidence is insufficient for me, give me more evidence", even that would be ok. Instead you "declined" in bold letters, as if you had evidence of the opposite. This seems like a clear case of bias. Shreevatsa 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of writing novels in response to requests. Occasionally, I do though. It didn't seem warranted in this case. As I said previously: According to the information available at the time... — you simply asserted something and provided no evidence at first. I'm not sure why a bald assertion from someone we don't know with no actual facts should be taken seriously. And again as I said previously: Once evidence of such was shown, we did take it seriously.

As to a bias in the workings of the blacklist. There is and should be a bias in favour of blacklisting (most requests are ones where blacklisting is clearly correct) and keeping things blacklisted (most requests are probably made by the spammers themselves, most of the remainder is cases where spamming would likely continue). However, this also means that in cases where the original rationale was incorrect some evidence-gathering has to happen. I do not see any problem with this. There should be such a bias. Evidence should be required in such cases. Just because you don't happen to like it doesn't make it wrong.

 — mike@meta:~$  02:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I forgot about this thread :p)

This is rubbish. I did not have any more information than you did — the information available at the time was perfectly sufficient to determine it was not spam. You don't have to believe an assertion, but when I claim that not a single link is spam, you can take it seriously and give it at least a cursory examination. You failed to do even that. When an editor with several thousand edits comes and makes a request, you assume he's a spammer even if he says he's not connected with the website?! On Wikipedia we have a policy, based on fundamental principles of humanity, that we "assume good faith". Apparently, you do not. The most galling thing in all this is that you lied — you claimed that

"Looking at User:COIBot/LinkReports/sulekha.com, I don't see the "mostly legitimate uses, and hardly any spam" - thus  Declined again."

when it is quite clear that you didn't look at all — if you had actually looked at them, you would have seen it, because I was able to look at the same list, with no more information than you, and see it. And now you are shamelessly trying to defend yourself; I don't know what to say. The mistake was originally on your part. I claim that there is no spam, you claimed that it was mostly spam, and if you wanted to persist with your false assertion, the burden of proof is on you — under any reasonable terms of engagement — to provide at least one example. The fact that you act high and mighty and assume everyone is a spammer and refuse to even pay the slightest attention to claims of your error shows the asymmetry of power in this situation. If you cannot step back for a moment and see that there is something wrong with this... Look, to find one example of spam would have taken you minutes. To go through hundreds of uses and classify each of them as legitimate took me hours. What makes you think that, even when it's you who has screwed up in the first place, a few minutes of your time is worth more than hours of someone who is actually contributing to the encyclopedia? Shreevatsa 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, I claimed that spam was the original reason for blacklisting. Which it was. As for "reasonable terms of engagement" - one might think such terms would include actually assuming good faith as opposed to making baseless accusations of lying. More to the point, such terms include an assumption that the initial blacklisting was correct. That's almost always true, and that assumption saves us countless hours of work, as you found out when you did a thorough review of every link addition. While I'm glad to see you're interested in these issues, I am not convinced that routinely wasting such effort is good for the projects (not "the encyclopedia"). Your parochial view aside, the current system serves us well in the vast majority of cases but fails spectacularly in a tiny proportion of them as you discovered. That ridiculously good track record is fine by me. You can thank the meta spam team on your way out.  – mike@meta:~$  15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

totalreal.com

---

totalreal.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)totalreal.com

(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

---

Dear Mike.lifeguard, you added totalreal.com to the blacklist, because I added following link totalreal.com/wiki/hattussas/galerie.htm to a lot of slavic wikipages like ucraina or serbia.

I don't know why you hated it, this pages were very poor with informations about that ruins. So from my view it was a nice add of fotos, .... Even there are no copyright-problems, I made researches and photos on my own.

If you want to remove totalreal.com from blacklist, than do it. Thanks Pedja

Not copyright problems - spamming. Several IPs (was that you?) were pushing the link on several wikis.  — mike@meta:~$  13:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Global locks of Thekohser and Thekohser-2

Mike, The SUL Thekohser had been unlocked in the beginning of May, and it appeared to be consensus to do that, generally, allowing each WMF wiki to make its own decisions about allegedly disruptive users. May 30, however, you re-locked, citing an unspecified discussion.[3] As you know, Thekohser attempted to open dialog yesterday, starting the account Thekohser-2 on Wikiversity. There seemed to be some consensus to allow him to, at least, use his original talk page to negotiate return. However, I discovered your May 30 relock, which made it impossible for him to use Thekohser for this, defeating my allowance of Talk page access for him. And now you have globally locked Thekohser-2 as well.[4] What's happening and why?

The appearance is that you are unilaterally making decisions about who can edit Wikiversity, and every WMF wiki, without any consideration of what the local communities prefer, effectively undoing the actions of various administrators who have unblocked him or allowed Talk page or email access. What's the reality? Thanks. --Abd 01:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The reality is he's banned, and the ban is being enforced.  – mike@meta:~$  16:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I don't think you answered my question, which was about the "discussion" you mentioned with the lock, and the appearance that your action might be unilateral, or might have resulted from a private discussion with unspecified participants. "Being enforced" is passive voice. Who decided he is banned, under what authority, and where is this documented? In any case, you need not trouble yourself, this will be handled as a routine matter, it's just that it would be simplest if resolved here. --Abd 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Being enforced" is passive voice because I'm not the only person enforcing this, but I couldn't be bothered to figure out who else had locked accounts etc. Jimbo banned him from all WMF projects.  – mike@meta:~$  15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What an odd thing. I thought Jimbo had given up the tools in a very public spat with WV. It doesn't really mean much if you give up the tools but then have others with those tools carry out your wishes... What do you think Mike? 64.139.4.129 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure that it matters what Mike thinks. Mike, I'm sorry for troubling you, but your answers imply to me that there was no specific discussion to point to and that your action was really unilateral, or based on some small-scale discussion, perhaps off-wiki, or just some general impression. It implies that you are not acting at the direction of the Foundation, nor of Jimbo. Yes, there are others "involved," though there is only one global lock, yours. Various admins, however, have acted to unblock the user or to allow him Talk page access. The global lock prevents that, thus representing meta interference in local authority. The steward manual implies that great caution should be exercised with using a global lock, but, of course, you have years of experience. My question here was simply an opportunity for you to explain. Thanks for your time, it's appreciated. --Abd 01:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There was both general and specific discussion. Much of the general discussion was in IRC (over a span of weeks); the specific discussion spread between stewards-l, checkuser-l, and some by private email. There's not one place I could point to for "The Discussion" which is why I didn't. I don't think you noticed that there are other stewards locking his accounts as well... though given the volume in Special:Log/centralauth, I can't say I blame you if you didn't look for it (and sorry, I don't remember who it was or the account name). If there's community consensus to allow him access to talk pages or something, you'll want to bring that up with Jimmy, I think. When he's wrong, I'm happy to contradict him, but in this case I think he's right, so I wouldn't blithely ignore his wishes.  – mike@meta:~$  11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Free alternatives

I'm really sorry but I absolutely not have the time for this for a completely month. I was taking pictures in 3 festivals and now I have to work on the 2500 of them ^^' Some are for Wikimedia. But my idea is you can take a look at deviantart. There is a Creative Commons licence there now. They have a lot of this sort of stuffs. Say me if you find something there! Good luck, Ceridwen 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly :)  – mike@meta:~$  20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you're just very lucky, it's my first day of vacation XD Ceridwen 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spamlist

I saw your mentioning in the header of your talk page that spamlist issues belong to that talk page. However, a request posted there more than a month ago still remains unanswered and I'm at loss, whether there are issues unsolved or something else. The previously blacklisted URL has a legitimate article in several Wikipedias (CozyCot). I know that the fact that you're the most active there does not give you the responsibility of answering every request, but I'm not sure what happened in this case. Gatyonrew 09:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw A.B.'s signature and assumed he'd handled it. I've suggested to whitelist it on enwiki  – mike@meta:~$  11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I replied there since I'm not sure what should be done further in the English Wikipedia. Gatyonrew 06:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You recently archived the current whitelisting requests, but the one about CozyCot required clarifications about the deferral to en.wp, since there is nothing more to do there. I paste here what I mentioned there:

"However, I didn't see the website blacklisted locally on English Wikipedia, it is here on Meta where it has a global blacklist, that's why I came here (considering also that there are articles in 5 other languages). The issues pertaining to the English article of the website (which originated the Meta blacklist request found by A.B.) have been discussed for a few weeks and the new English article has been considered neutral and "above-and-beyond what's requested by WP:N" (citing the user Hobit). This while it appears that there was never an issue about actual spamming (i.e. filling up the article with links towards cozycot.com or spamming such links in other Wikipedia articles). I'm not sure what can be done further in the English Wikipedia, what should be pointed out for discussion."

Gatyonrew 19:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. But you've requested whitelisting on enwiki, which is what I recommended. Is that insufficient?  – mike@meta:~$  21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I did that, but then I realized it was meaningless, I have no idea what should be further put to discussion and what should be solved there. Meta is the place to address this issue. A request that I thought it would be a formality, concerning several legitimate articles in various Wikipediae, with an (over)discussed English one with clear conclusions. Gatyonrew 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll un-archive the section and get someone to review it.  – mike@meta:~$  13:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll discuss there from now on. Gatyonrew 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian Wikipedia

Hello Mike. I have problems with one user on AL Wiki. The problem is that he vandalizes Macedonia-related artcles, especially the names of articles. Moreover he is nationalist and irredentist. Some months ago we have agreed on AL Wiki not to use FYROM for Macedonia, Slavomacedonians for Macedonians and similar things. Some time ago, he started to vandalize the articles, rename them as he wishes. Whole Albanian community accepted our mutual solution, except him. Can you take some further steps or give me some recommendation? I know only one admin at that Wiki, but he is not active for several days. Thanks in advance.--MacedonianBoy 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This really needs to be discussed with the Albanian Wikipedia community. Try to bring the inappropriate behaviour to the user's attention, and make it clear that the community wants them to stop. If they don't, then you can start thinking about sanctions.  – mike@meta:~$  21:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

You seem considerably active here, so I wanted to ask you if Wikimedia Forum is the suitable place to discuss this. Thanks, Codedon 21:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. BTW, the CU was redone, and the conclusion was the same. If you're here just to make a fuss, don't be surprised if you get blocked.  – mike@meta:~$  21:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Support

As suggested by your goodsleves mr wiki community has consensus to opt out,please do the needfull. Talk:Global sysops/wiki set#opting out request from mr wiki and mr wiktionary Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another steward did this just now. Thanks for informing me  – mike@meta:~$  12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AlgBioTek

Sonerh 21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please get me out of blacklist. All I contributed was scientific research papers not advertisement. Wiki should be the resource of safe info. My external links were not spam.

I don't know what domain you're talking about.  – mike@meta:~$  00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:COIBot/XWiki/algbiotek.com Kylu 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case - no, you were spamming. To have someone else review this, please post in the removal section of WM:SPAM.  – mike@meta:~$  01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonerh 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) let me answer all your questions Sir. I am the owner of the website (algbiotek.com). The external links that are present now (the scientific abstracts) on Spirulina topic belong to me. I have finally found a way to publish scientific documents except of my website. I am not expecting to get hits for that. I would like the information which are scientific, to be published anywhere. True scientific information should be available and for free for everyone. As you may check all the external links, there are no spam. I am a PhD student writing my thesis and publishing some information on my webpage, and try to do the same in wiki pages. please get me on whitelist for spirulina. no more mistakes from me anymore. See external links of spirulina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29 Please check this out. algbiotek.com is the same server as Spirunella.com, as well as bioalg.com, mikroalg.com, hawaiian-spirulina.com, spirulina-hawaii.com, hawaiian-spirulina.info, algalogy.com, algaloji.com, spirulinam.com, etc. I have bought more domains and redirected all JUST TO publish true information in the right way, OK for the rules. Actually they could all be from one of them but then it is accepted as spam by mr.wiki. This is just a misunderstanding so please get me on the whitelist. Give me another chance, please Sir?

       Soner Helvacioglu (on going)PhD, MSc, DVM

Sonerh 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Dear Mike,

Please have some empathy and forgive me. Please get me out of local blacklisting or please propose me for whitelisting. A final last chance please???

25 July 2010 Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) m (249,971 bytes) (Adding \balgbiotek\.com\b per User:COIBot/XWiki/algbiotek.com. Using SBHandler.)

Soner Helvacioglu (on going)PhD, MSc, DVM

Links

The links, http://toolserver.org/~lifeguard/PGP and http://toolserver.org/~lifeguard/SSH at the bottom of your user page, are broken. Liangent 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix them.

Incidentally, please please do not use a template as your signature. I've substed this one.  – mike@meta:~$  15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged-out bot

Hi! There appears to be a global bot editing while logged out here. Could something be done about it, please? Jafeluv 16:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I blocked it.  – mike@meta:~$  01:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki

Hi, Mike.lifeguard. I'm new to Meta-Wiki. May I ask what there is to edit here? Thanks, Ocean Shores 14:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have lots of pages to edit... were you looking for something specific?  – mike@meta:~$  16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything to edit here like we would at Wikipedia? Ocean Shores 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Meta is not a content project. It is a wiki for co-ordination and so on.  – mike@meta:~$  21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

En.Labs.Wikimedia

Please see the RFP at en.lab, thank you --minhhuy*= 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

block

Why do you blocked the page User tak /J.Scipt. Its a page for the dOCUMENTA - 13 Adfambücher--manolo/K.Polle/Hook v.Holland/B.Ziege 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Büro grütze

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about. If you want to ask in German, I can find someone to translate what you say.  – mike@meta:~$  21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why can someone create a bot acc in id.wp

Hi, I'm Benny from id.wp. A fellow id.Wikipedian asked me why can't he create a bot (ArdBot). The error message was (I've tried it myself) that the name match the ".*(\bp|P)(?i:engguna).*" ("Pengguna" is "User" in Indonesian) in http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - I wonder how in the future people can create bot in id.wp. Is it safe to delete that line? Kindly leave a message/reply for me in my talk page. Thanks. Bennylin 15:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could remove that. You should check the page history to fine who added it, then check with them. Maybe they have a reason it should stay in the blacklist that I can't think of.  – mike@meta:~$  21:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the only contributor to that page is you, have any idea why you add that? NB: Please inform Benny for your grant at his talk page. Thanks, ArdWar^(T•C•L) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I simply transferred entries from the username blacklist (that extension is now deprecated). Looking in the history for that page, the entry was added by Borgx.  – mike@meta:~$  01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Global block of 130.217.76.77

Howdy!

Can I please turn your attention to your global block of 130.217.76.77 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I think it could at least be tweaked to anon-only, as pointed out by Gible, a friend of mine, who was affected by the block. The linked talk page includes his full explanation of the nature of the proxy.

Could you please look into it? Regards, Миша13 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done – mike@meta:~$  01:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)