User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 30



Global Sysop vote
What's with all the constant questioning of everybody who has added an 'oppose' vote for the Global Sysop proposal? Why are these people (including myself) being harassed? Let people have their say and move on. I don't see lots of questions being asked of those who've voted in support of the proposal?--ЗAНИA talk 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is they need to say why they oppose. I've been working on this series of proposals for probably a year, maybe more. It is insulting that people would not give due consideration. Asking for that is not harassment. The reason I haven't asked supporters for the same is because they are indicating agreement with the proposal - which outlines very precisely the rationale. Some have included additional reasoning, which is even better. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

meta:User talk:Seb az86556 (<what's up with the template?)


 * I have revised my comments to a better wording and added a "proposal to amend wording"-section at the bottom of the voting-page. Feel free to comment. Thank you. meta:User talk:Seb az86556 Actually, how about this. Peace. meta:User talk:Seb az86556

Global sysop amendment
hello Mike. Thank you for your constructive comments on the section I added to the global sysop-vote ("proposal to amend wording"). You bring up a good point about granting permanent sysop-ship as well. Please see my comment in that section for further discussion. I highly appreciate your cooperation. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusing
I went through ANI regarding this individual. If you want to look through my recent history you will see it, but since this is public I will not name names. I was asked to stop, I have stopped the proceedings. You can contact me at trackinfoorg at yahoo if you wish. Nothing was solved. My conclusion is: Administrators will just protect their own. We mere editors have little say. I raised the issue not because of my stub article, but because of the obvious history this guy has. That "habit" was not dealt with and in fact, was praised.

This great plan you are so heavily advocating will result in empowering more of these monsters to arbitrarily delete things--without using the procedures in place. One powerful person's opinion outweighs the ability of another to defend their work. That is not how consensus is achieved or how WP should work. Power corrupts.Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We currently have a group of fewer people with more power. The proposal aims to spread it out more, and you somehow think that's a problem? &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GSysop
Just a few clarification, nothing important or urgent (you can even point me to the right pages and I'll look them over), that is missing on that discussion or I couldn't find a mention of it. Personally my intuited responses to those questions is what decided my vote. I think that due to the chaos that seems to be reigning on those pages clarifying this issues would help. I also have a particular dislike on how votes/pools outside of wikibooks are coordinated in general, I know here we (sadly) do not always do it formally but we at least can keep some order, its a freak show out-there... --Panic (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If the proposal was adopted what projects would qualify for criteria?
 * Global sysops/wiki set (with additions/removals depending upon who opts-in/-out) &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Why was it decided for a top down approach and not rely in each of the "needy" projects to call for outside help, this seems would be more representative and less bureaucratic.
 * The whole point is that these projects don't really have that capacity. That's also why we're trying to provide a hopefully-sane default for inclusion, while still allowing adjustment per-wiki as needed. Furthermore, the people doing this work are largely SWMT members -- and that group is calling for global sysops. Vocally. The main proposers all come from that group. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not aware on the procedures and qualifications but is this a sign that Wikimedia is creating too many projects or making it too easy to put them up without thinking on the wasting of good faith by volunteers and resources that could be better invested elsewhere?
 * No, I think the need for this reflects the maturation of the community. As we get older, we have fewer new contributors, which means fewer people countering vandalism. So, there's a need to have more people with privileged access sufficient to take up the slack. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied inline for most.
 * I do agree, the vote has become a bit of a cesspool - I don't envy the steward to has to read everything and come to a conclusion as to what consensus exists, if any. The main issue truly is a lack of understanding. For example, people are questioning that there is even a problem with vandalism. While that is self-evident to myself, and many others who do work in that area (and so we see it day in day out), it is not so evident to many. I wish there was an easy way we could show people something to prove there is a problem that needs fixing, but that is not so easy to do - the best way is to have them join us and see for themselves as it happens. But that isn't likely to occur. Likewise, actually reading and understanding the proposal is a problem. People have been complaining that there is no restriction like "vandalism only" -- but that is exactly what "urgent abuse" refers to. We simply used that to include spam and malbots and ... so on. In fact, most complaints are actually dealt with in the proposal.
 * &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. It changed a bit my position on the subject and if the clarification is added (regarding the default opt-in, and how to get out of it) I'll remove my opposition. I still think the general approach is bad but also understand the issue with vandalism, so there is a need for balance and because you said the push for the proposal to pass is coming from projects that are affected, then it isn't my place to block it.
 * The reasons I'm still in disagree result from the creation of the function. The communities that should care for the each project will loses some control over them (or diverted form exerting it).
 * Fighting vandalism also shows what fragilities exist and by reducing the need for them to take responsibility then few will decide to take a more active role on those projects (that is why I agree with some of the opinions that if there isn't enough critical mass projects should fold). Taking up bureaucratic tasks (not particularly using the tools) isn't the major motivator for people to join the project in the first place but is as important or more than only contributing content, it is also more time sensitive and requires a greater commitment. This is why I'm also discontent with abolishing of the patrolling of pages here, it provided a reason for people to understand what is going on beyond their pet projects and move from a being a simpler user to a full member of the community. Most of our promotions for the other tools came from that group of people. --Panic (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you wanted to clarify that projects can opt-in/-out and that the project activity guidelines are just hopefully-sane defaults. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first rewrite proposal (second vote on that page), has impact on how future discussion would proceed on each project. --Panic (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. That's very close to the standard we'd use anyways - it is just an attempt to write it down. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
Check the discussion and if you agree cast your vote (you were the proponent of that RfD). --Panic (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Entrepreneur's Almanac
Mike,

I need some help knowing what it is that the staff of Wiki want from us regarding the copyright on this material. I thought we just took care of this with one of the other admins. I'm not sure what exactly you took issue with regarding the link you sent, there is some similar wording but I assure you that all of the content of the document has been reviewed by attorneys and is perfectly legal for us to post in this realm, as it is owned by the Maryland State Bar Association. A group which consists of business and COPYRIGHT attorneys and I was told that all I had to do was make the link on the first page and that would take care of the issue. As you can see, I did link to the MSBA website, and I will properly cite any text that is determined to be derived from a government document, but please keep in mind that I am new to this and still do not have your system completely figured out yet, so I am somewhat slow in my edits. Please feel free to call me and discuss any legal issues you have with this publication as I am an attorney and I am sure that we can clear up any concerns that the Wiki people have with our submission.

Thank you,

Bill McComas 410-385-4233
 * Probably just a coincidence that I found some matching text then - no problem. We just need you to email info@wikibooks.org saying that all the copyright holders release their work under the site license (cc-by-sa). I know you've done this on-wiki, but we need you to do it by email, using an email address associated with the Maryland State Bar Association. Otherwise, you could be anybody - and getting away with copyright infringement. Thanks &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I will have someone email you as soon as possible from the MSBA to confirm that this is a collaborative work created by the attorneys that are involved with the project. I appreciate your diligence in monitoring the copyrights for wiki, and apologize if I was curt in my reply, I was just getting very frustrated with trying to comb through all of your pages to get an answer to what exactly you all wanted or needed from us to post this publication, and for someone that is not as technically literate as it appears everyone else is on this site, I was just trying to get the thing up so people could see it, and as soon as I typed something it seemed you all were mighty quick on the trigger. I would appreciate it if we could take down the huge signs on the site that accuse us of copyright infringement in the meantime as it is defaming to our organization to accuse us without verification.

Thank you for your help in this matter, once again, I invite you to call me with any further concerns that you may have regarding the posted publication. Bill McComas Esq.

oh and p.s. I will work on splitting it up into smaller sections once I get the information posted, and if you could rename the publication to The Maryland Entrepreneur's Guide I would very much appreciate it.

Thanks again
 * Done & done. Thanks for taking care of this - there's no real rush, the text isn't going anywhere while you get someone to email us. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will work on the rest of the subsections, and you should be receiving the email soon from the MSBA. Bill
 * I haven't seen anything emailed to us - did you do that but someone else replied to the email? Or maybe you haven't gotten around to it &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 19:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

k-12math.info
Quite a few pages have been created recently (they stand out too, in all-caps) with links to k-12math.info. I do not see an appropriate license on that page and suspect these additions are to promote this website. While Jkelly952 states that he is Jim Kelly, at the very least these need to have an OTRS notification, but this could be link spam. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is an OTRS notification? I use a .info extension because the purpose of my site is to provide information, with no distraction or screen space being taken up with advertising. And I am not sure what "link spam" is ? Sorry if my 68 year old mind does not fully understand - I am just trying to provide information. -- Jim Kelly Jkelly952
 * OTRS is just the way of raising a request (open ticket request system). If you read here on Wikipedia it explains how to request copyright permission. It's easy to infer from here how you also give the permission to reuse your material. The book if created here should not have "k-12math.info" as the name because this is "link spam". That is, it relates the name of a web site (k-12math.info) directly to Wikibooks. It is also not a sensible name for a book. For example, if you wrote a paper book about Wikibooks you wouldn't title it en.wikibooks.org, you'd call it "Wikibooks". Similarly you should find a more descriptive name for your text book that doesn't appear to promote your web site. You should also read the guide to structuring books here as the pages should be named in a way that links them together. Thanks <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 08:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything at k-12math.info - am I missing something? I'll look into any link additions though. @Jkelly952: you can email info@wikibooks.org with a release for the copyright on anything you add to Wikibooks that's been previously published elsewhere. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, a number of unlinked / ungrouped pages were added by Jim and then tagged (due to the possible copyvio) with the qr-em template, and then deleted about 2 weeks later. You can see them in the deleted contributions. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, right-o. Thanks for that.
 * Incidentally, the only links to that domain were added by Jkelly952, but I don't think it is really a spam problem. mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 03:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

musthighschool.com
Jackiboa had added links to several books to this commercial website. They also spammed at Wikiversity. It may be worth looking into whether any other accounts have tried to promote this website. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's the only account that's added the link. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

v:Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments
Just wanted to alert you to this - your wisdom and experience could be helpful. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching from afar, and that's all I plan to do. This is something the Wikiversity community needs to deal with themselves. My best advice is that while you may not like Jimbo's unilateral actions, it doesn't mean he's wrong. There are truths in what he's saying - recognizing those will be for the best. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 13:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
User:Cro-mag rally registration code : AMAHFJDHFMAM may appear as a problem elsewhere. It has the pattern of blanking pages and has done so to earn an infinite block here and at Wiktionary. An account was also registered at Wikiquote, so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened there too. Now, you might expect that trolls would get angry about their vandalism being rolled back; however, this guy took the initiative and decided to threaten to kill me even before I noticed their work. You'd think they'd be smarter than to vandalize an admin's page; nothing will get a ban faster. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they got noticed yesterday by other stewards... I think we're ok for now &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 03:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MakerFairePedia
Will this be in project scope? "The online Maker Faire encyclopedia that anyone who can figure out how can edit." -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the longer-range plans will ok here. JPS seems to know what he's doing, so I'm willing to give him some rope. We may find it needs to find a wiki elsewhere in the future, but I'm OK to leave it for now. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Who violated 3RR? w:simple:User_talk:PiRSquared17 or w:simple:User_talk:Kaiserreich? 83.11.75.38 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See, PiRSquared17 insults me calling me troll. Kaiserreich (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care - this is about making spurious requests of stewards. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 03:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gadgets
As a theoretical, if we get all the files moved to Commons, will the Autodelete and delink images using Twinkle gadget be needed any longer? Also, the Bottom tabs and Six tabs gadgets don't work in Vector. Should those be updated, or marked as Monobook-only, or can they be removed from MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition without affecting anyone using them? – Adrignola talk contribs 02:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nope, it wouldn't be needed 2) They should be marked as monobook-only for now, but I do want to eventually rewrite it in a vector-compatible way. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

SUL on wikibooks
hallo Mike.lifeguard, I would like to verify my account on wikibooks. Greetings User:Kalima
 * It already is attached to your global account. –   17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

IRC quiet
Hi Mike, I am not sure what the deal was with those scripts but I disabled them now. You shouldn't have a problem. I was eating breakfast and so did not realize there was a problem. Could you unquiet me? If I want to experiment with bots, I will do it on a separate account. My apologies for the disturbance. Arlen22 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can a regular IRC user quiet a bot user if he is flagged as such? Arlen22 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A regular user cannot quiet anyone. –   01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The_Hawk
Do you know who operates the IRC Bot The_Hawk? I thought it might be nice if it were updated to watch the new proposals reading room. Thenub314 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do & done –   02:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First Aid PDF
Is there a reason to have a static copy of the on-demand PDF linked from the template on First Aid? – Adrignola talk 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So people don't have to figure out the mess of non-usability that is the book creator? It should probably be updated, but there is certainly a purpose for it. –   01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated Collection to provide direct links to the PDF and printed versions. Nothing to figure out if people don't have to use it period. – Adrignola talk 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet deal :D –   16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G'day Mike
As a very new chap over here on wikibooks, I don't really feel that I should join in the discussion about the unblock of thekohser, which I would support, but I did think it was worth popping in here to ask about your recent request to remove your checkuser rights on this project.

I just had a bit of a chat about this on the stewards IRC channel (really to learn about how the various rights work etc.) and I thought I'd follow it up by popping in here. I'm sure you'd be aware that there's a risk of a 'fishy' appearance to your stepping down, because of the simultaneous request to remove Adrignola's rights, due to there no longer being two checkusers - and in part due to your technical ability, as a steward, to restore your checkuser rights if you felt there was an emergency (perhaps if a 'globally banned' user was active ;-) - anywhoo, I thought your take on the whole thing was worth asking for - and I think it'd probably be best to explicitly state it if you've decided not to use checkuser on this wiki under any circumstances - which I personally feel would be for the best :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without the local CU bit, I have no such plans. –   11:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)