User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 9

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Beetstra in topic heh

<older newer>


Most of that is indeed superfluous, except maybe for the 'whatlinkshere' link (which results in a list of pages where the IP/UserSummary is used for the user). Maybe reinstate that one somewhere? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call - I'll see about adding that back in shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I hid the links to the user talk page (I don't think that bit is helpful) but it's still there, so uses will still register as linking to it, and will show up in the "→ links ←" link (I hope that is iconic for others - if not I'll put something descriptive there. I've also done that for {{LinkSummary}} (except linking to which might be useful as well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


bonjour, vous avez mis le lien externe geckoleo en pourriel et mis à la place celui du temple des geckos. savez vous que geckoleo est la nouvelle version de geckoonline, l'ancien site cité initialement sur la page? un site qui existait depuis 2002 et qui vous a prêté des infos et des photos??

In all the links you added (see User:COIBot/XWiki/, I see only one where you are fixing/updating a pre-existing link. So it seems to me like inappropriate promotion of the link. If you think I have made a mistake, please post on WM:SPAM.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Dans tous les liens que vous avez ajouté, je ne vois qu'un où vous avez corrigé ou mise à jour un lien qui existait en avant. Cela me semble inapproprié de promotion du lien. Si vous pensez que j'ai fait une erreur, s'il vous plaît fait un demande sur WM:SPAM.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


WHAT? I am trying to give wikipedia the best of my pictures and you ROBOT-block the lot?

Do you know how much work it was to put all these pictures online? I am very disappointed with wikipedia.

I can not possibly recreate all the pictures... can you undo the robot?

You apparently own this domain, which makes placing links to it a conflict of interest. Even if that weren't the case, it's still inappropriate promotion of the domain. Furthermore, the links are unwanted: [1][2][3][4]. I don't think it should be removed from the blacklist, however if you wish to contest it please place a request for de-listing at Talk:Spam blacklist.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have requested a delisting, see Talk:Spam blacklist, I apologise for the hassle. Y23 05:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am humbly requesting the removal of from the spam-list... explained in Talk:Spam blacklist. Y23 01:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm planning to review that discussion in the near future, but I'm a bit busy right now. Perhaps someone else will get to it before I do. If not, please be patient.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mike. I've allready created the Turkish wikibooks logo. Thanks, 135px Srhat 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for letting me know.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

message at en

I left you a note at your en-Wiki user page. - Nunh-huh 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a note on the xwiki report. IMHO the case is clear. OTOH, thank's for your support at my bot request. Cheers —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 11:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

May I delete that logo?--Atjesse 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think I ever did make a localized version for mlwikibooks... Do you know a good translator?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ya..we are trying...The disscussions are going on here(in malayalam ;))..I've made a local no slogan version...may be you should contact b:ml:User:Jyothis or w:ml:User Sadik Khalid for further works..I'm a bit busy as my exams are going on...--Atjesse 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no rush - if people at mlwikibooks are working on a translation, they can let me know when it's done, or you could make the version with the slogan if you like (I don't have to do all the work). I'll try to remember to ask in a few days if they've made any progress.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe a second thought

Dear Mike, I do have a great amount of respect for you and from observing your contributions, I found you to be a very reasonable person. I have voted against Mardetanha nomination and I appreciate if you read mine and other comment there. whether you decide to change your vote or not, but please keep in mind that this particular case is a very serious issue which can affect real lives of some wikipedia users. --Kaaveh Ahangar 12:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find your objections to be nearly baseless. Mardetanha is active, trusted, and does good work. Making him a steward will be good for our projects - that is the core issue, and your statements don't sway me.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my arguments did I ever suggested he is "not active, not trusted and does not have a positive rule"? The reason I object him is the country he lives in and the special ciecumastances there which can affect real lives of some wikipedia users. --Kaaveh Ahangar 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your objections, and I said I found them to be nearly baseless. I'm not overly concerned about where he lives, and I don't think anyone else should be.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you can now use SBHandler to just close XWiki reports. If you want you can set SBHandlerCloseComment to use a custom comment. More importantly it fails gracefully when the log doesn't exist yet. --Erwin(85) 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words. I approach these situations as I presume you do as well, with intentions for the best outcome for the wikimedia projects, which made my decision pretty simple. -- Avi 16:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Dear Mike,

You put into spam. She had a link on kindle page, leading to her review of kindle for Moms, how is that spam?

Please write back

Jean New York -- 11:15, February 2, 2009

I'm sorry, we are not running a linkfarm. The domain was spammed cross-wiki in a conflict of interest. If you'd like to contest the addition, please open a request on Talk:Spam blacklist.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello administrators, please remove my domain and all related domains from black list. It has nothing to do with me, I guarantee that I will never enter in wiki at all. Thank you very much!

I think this one was dealt with at Talk:Spam blacklist already.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth

For what it is worth, after talking with other metapedians, I was told I understated my linguistic ability, so I expanded my statement a bit. I am not going to drop notes on everyone's talk pages, but I may contact one or two people who have the capability to confirm what I say (e.g. have OTRS access). -- Avi 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. Mike.lifeguard # addition; see User:COIBot/XWiki/

how to remove the sites from spam blacklist? i added the, because it the german affilate of the hotel chain best western to some site where only was the domain listed the other 2 sites are german best western hotels. so let me know how to solve this problem. thanks

Can you please open a section requesting removal from the blacklist on Talk:Spam blacklist? Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TWI request

Hi, you seem to be the most active trans-wiki importer here on meta, so I was wondering if you would mind importing w:Help:Cite errors to my userspace here for me? I want to eventually get it to but is not a valid import source there, so it needs to be sent here first. Would you mind importing all revisions of that page to somewhere here? Many thanks in advance, Happymelon 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  DoneUser:Happy-melon/Cite errors.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Happymelon 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ineligible votes

Hi, Mike.

If you are removing ineligible votes from steward candidates, may I trouble you to look at this one, please? <> Thank you. -- Avi 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was indented already by Majorly - I'm pretty sure all the summaries won't count it and it definitely wouldn't be counted in the final tally. Good eyes though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was uncomfortable doing it myself. -- Avi 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Thank you for your inquiry. I do not feel a need to justify or defend my votes, but I did wish to explain to my acquaintance Fabexplosive why I could not support xyr specific bid. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. I wish you well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello. how long have you been wih WikiMedia? I just joined.--God'sGirl94 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikimedia projects since early 2006.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Could you give me some hints about WikiMedia?--God'sGirl94 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I could give you lots of hints, but I don't know where to start. Do you know which of our projects you want to contribute to?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Just watched your screencast about the Spam Blacklist -- it's definately made the unintelligible links a lot clearer, thanks. Off to go and get the global script. :P. Thanks again, it's a really good idea, and has helped a lot: now to get involved! Microchip08 @simpleWB 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you found it helpful (and that you could hear me.. I'm going to re-record it in parts eventually). If you come across problems, let me know & I'll add that to the list of screencasts to do in the future.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


  ...prehaps? Microchip08 @simpleWB 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

YESYESYES! Can you do that for {{usersummary}} and {{ipsummary}}?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Microchip08 @simpleWB 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


I have been playing a bit with the XWiki reports, and I am planning to play a bit more in the near future. I have added spans around the link-records in the XWiki reports:

* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel01"> </span>
* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel11"> </span>
* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel21"> </span>

around the whole record

* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel02"> </span>
* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel12"> </span>
* <span class="coibot-xwikilevel22"> </span>

around the internal part of the record (i.e. after the *). (level0X = user not in a usersummary template anywhere on this page; level1X = user in a usersummary template anywhere on this page; level2X = this user was not in the previous save of the report, but has been added in this save (would be a new user starting to spam this). The last two may be a bit double, but giving them the same colour just has the wanted effect).

These can be used to color or hide parts or the whole record. Requests:

  • How do we name these spans nicely, so we can consider to add some standard in the main monobook (I am thinking to standard hide whitelisted users .. not just strikethrough, we can then in our monobooks make them visible to get a better overview).
  • What standard do we choose for some.

--Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I used my monobook to have some view. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that seem unnecessarily hackish and pointless. I thought the whole point of having XWiki reports was that you want a list of link additions by these specified users and nobody else and the point of having LinkReports reports was that you want a list of all link additions in the database. Am I wrong? If not, then people who aren't in the list of users for a XWiki report shouldn't appear at all. If you want to see additions by those users, then include them in the report, or look at the LinkReports report. I think that will be far more useful than what you're proposing above, and certainly more intelligible to users looking at the reports.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, both have a good and a bad side. Having only the bad link additions there makes it easier to go through them and remove them, but you loose at the first glance the overview of 'where there also good additions'. For me it would be clearer to have the good ones there also, then a quick 'count' of bad vs. good, and who did use them in a good way gives me quickly a feeling of what to do next. Not using this hack just leaves the reports in the old format. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would think comparing the XWiki report to the other one is not onerous. Losing "at the first glance the overview of 'where there also [are] good addition'" is exactly what's needed. That information shouldn't be available at first glance since it produces massive, bloated, unweildy reports which are less useless than reports with targeted, relevant, specified data. It'd also be useful to limit the number of "other links added in this diff" to 10. We need concise summaries of data in the reports, not all the data itself. You're trying to include too much information that's not important enough to warrant inclusion and it's making the reports less useful. As well, reporting emails here is useless; please try to have that stop.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have removed the information in the reports, linking to the LinkReport if there are hidden reports. I also limited the number of links added in a diff to 10, above that it hides all of them (just giving the number).
Emails is pretty useless, though part of the abuse. I have made the bot still report them (otherwise I hack and hack), but I autoclose them after 1 hour after the last addition (to allow for the lag in reporting and multiple additions to stop). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and Thank you.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewardship vote

Regarding your emailed question, there wasn't any one thing in particular. I am largely persuaded by Durova's comment. In the few times I have seen you on en, I haven't been overly thrilled - this attack where you say there is something wrong with people who disagree with you comes to mind. As a side note (which had nothing to do with my vote) on enwiki, please go to your user preferences, click on the "Editing" tab, and turn off "Mark all edits minor by default". I'm sure what the rule is on other projects, but on the Englich Wikipedia, only vandalism reverts, removal of spam, and the like should be marked as minor. You are marking everything (including talk page messages and participation in discussions in the Wikipedia namespace) as minor. --B 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for your honesty. I obviously don't agree with you, but at least I know your reasoning.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewards elections


Since I cant vote on the election I want to say my support this way. I hope you will be chosen as Steward you have my trust.

Best regards, Abigor talk 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I didn't completely understand this message about eligibility, but got the general gist - I have seen some stuff about minimum edits, but I reckon the translation was underpar (certainly lackin' in scope). If I ain't eligible for a vote, then so be it. I'll not take this further, mate....p.s. GL!--Agricoleur 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, on second thought, I'm pretty sure you're eligible. The whole elections will be revisited officially at the end anyways. No worries & thanks again.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess you technically don't meet the requirements & your vote did get removed in the end. Thanks for thte support anyways.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Site notice on gv:WP

Hi Mike, I was wondering if you could possibly help on this. The general site notice advising about steward elections is not showing on the Manx language project. Instead of the usual header on the page, all we are seeing is the following piece of code:


Perhaps you are not the person to contact about it, but I thought I should let you know anyway. If possible could you direct me to the correct person, please? Kind regards, --MacTire02 09:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like it might be a server issue... is it still occurring?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a bug of some sort - see wikitech-l.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

I understand you are acting within policy, but for propriety's sake, don't you think it better to let someone not standing in the current election to remove invalid votes from another concurrent candidate? Wiki functionaries need to act in a way that is above and beyond even the scent of reproach, no? -- Avi 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not ideal, however nearly everyone involved in organizing the elections have been stewards, in the running to be a steward, plus a very small number of others. Restricting monitoring & removing votes to that small group would have been impractical - though at present (since there's fewer votes coming in) my help is needed less. Frankly, I don't see an issue (even a perceived one) unless somebody makes one, but if it'll make you feel more comfortable I'll stop. Almost all the votes I've removed have been IPs, regarding which there can be no argument. The usernames were confirmed with other users and I've only removed votes from others' pages.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is accepted practice here on meta, then far be it from me to have you stop. Most of my experience is on EnWiki, where such editing, while not forbidden, is usually not done. Meta is definitely NOT EnWiki, and the differences must be respected. Thanks. -- Avi 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Недавно со страницы Златоуст была удалена ссылка Это ведь сервис, создаваемый специально для города Златоуста, и имеет прямое отношение к развитию города, в котором сейчас довольно сложная ситуация с трудоустройством. Как можно вернуть эту ссылку?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I'll try to find someone who reads Russian shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand it like:
You have removed the link but that link is related with the city, can you please revert you decission. Abigor talk 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Abigor. But I can't even find a report for that domain, so I think that may be mistaken. In any case, if I'm wrong then feel free to re-add the link.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


I reopened m:User:COIBot/XWiki/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ... we're not done there yet. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Mike.lifeguard/Archive 9".