User talk:Micki/Archive 2

RfC

Pozdrav! Da li možeš da zatvoriš ovaj RfC? Mislim da smo se uglavnom složili, samo vidi da se kaže nekoa reč na kraju. Inače smo svi složni... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done mickit 17:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Фала ви велико, љубазни сте! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Но фркс :) Нема на чему. mickit 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help for migrate of Serbian Main Page to unified design

Hi! Please help us for complete translation of Template:Main Page/sr. For add translations need click to edit-link for every section. After complete translation may be replace text of Главна страна to transcluded {{Main Page/sr}}. Thanks in advance! --Kaganer 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check current translations on Template:Main Page/sr and please make new translations for:

• News note
• some string in request list (see comments)
• WMF note
• Sisterprojects list

Thanks and Best Regards! --Kaganer 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You help us? --Kaganer 21:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I did my best. You can ask Milos to check the translation. mickit 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! This final version - Milos has no time and effort now, he said :( --Kaganer 11:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm 99% sure that everything is OK :) mickit 12:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Još jedna za OTRS

Zdravo Micki!

Dobio sam mejlom odobrenje za korišćenje još jedne fotografije: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prečista_Krajinska.jpg. Nije isti sajt kao kod one fotografije od prije dva mjeseca, ali je sličan odgovor, opet poslan u odvojenom mejlu (tj. nisu koristili reply kad su odgovorili na moju poruku). Proslijedio sam oba mejla na permissions-sr. Nadam se da je i ovaj put sve u redu. U zdravlje, VVVladimir 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Odgovorio sam na email. Pozdrav! mickit 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, could you delete my user page and I want to erase my personal information because I have mended that hurt me.--Hugo felix 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Tegel _(Talk) 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Userpage creation request

Hello Micki,

I apologize for keeping you uninformed for a long time. I started processing your request just after I finished Peter's, but there was a problem with the creation of your user page creation in jawiki and the bot stopped working. Therefore I failed to create all the user pages after jawiki. I filed that bug to Hoo and he was busy so wasn't available to fix the problem.

Anyway, none of those are excuse of not informing you about the situation. It was my failure of not informing you at the right time. And I understand that you have waited for so long and missed your CSS page on many wikis. I am very sorry. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I understand the situation. I assumed that there is a problem but I didn't know what it is. Anyway, I ask Pathoscild to finish it. I hope Hoo and you will solve the problem. Thank you for what you've done. mickit 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are too kind. :-) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

mickit 10:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Аbrape

Hallo Micki, bitte lösche auch User talk:Аbrape. (А from leftside User talk:Аbrape is an cyrillisch one !) Vielen Dank --Abrape 11:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin

Nisam znao da si admin na meti. :) Da li ima još neko od srpskih vikipedijanaca koji ima taj status ovde? --FriedrickMILBarbarossa 02:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Da, Dungodung i Millosh su takođe admini. mickit 06:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

Can you please explain in more detail how a debate with a numerical 71% supermajority for "delete" (25:10) can be closed as "no consensus"? Also, please explain how it is compatible with proper admin practice for such a contentious debate to be closed by an admin who himself participated, with a vote on the minority side, thus making his own minority opinion prevail over a clearly stronger side?

The argument you cited, that such a deletion was counter to precedent and therefore needs a stronger consensus, fails because all the delete votes were made in full knowledge of the fact that it was an uncommon case and counter to prior practice – people voted this way because they wanted prior practice to be changed. The reference to Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users is also invalid, because that RfC is about a different issue: it's about the question under what circumstances RfCs should be admissible, not about the issue of whether bad RfCs should be subject to deletion. Under these circumstances, the only way you could evaluate the debate as not constituting a clear consensus for deletion is if you had given some of the delete votes systematically lower weight than other votes. If you believe some delete votes should be discounted, you need to say why.

Please revert your closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not 25:10. It's 24:10, which means that obviously there is no strong consensus for deletion such pages and it doesn't matter which admin will close it. Also, another Meta admin reviewed my decision and didn't find nothing wrong in my conclusion. Best regards mickit 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That other admin is even more deeply personally involved in the whole dispute than you are. Is this the kind of administrator ethics you cultivate around here? And 24:10 is still 71%. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (BTW, not that it matters, but you are wrong: it is 25:10.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I find this close very disappointing. Speaking as somebody who has not been involved in the discussion, this seems to be disregarding very clear consensus. Please consider overturning this decision. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that you are both deeply involved in the whole case, so I'm not really surprised by these comments. I'm trying to act neutrally and in the best interest of the project. Consensus is not only vote counting, but also the strength of the arguments. I looked at the whole discussion several times and made ​​the only possible decision. mickit 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to see where you drew the conclusion that I was "deeply involved". Your arguments are very weak indeed, and the "only possible decision", as I'm reading the discussion, is for deletion. I would also be very interested to hear what arguments you considered strong enough to keep this document, so please explain your decision more clearly. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Micky, a "strength-of-argument" closure decision can never legitimately be made by someone who has participated with their own arguments in the debate. Even if we allowed for a more relaxed attitude to "involved" admin actions than I may be used to elsewhere, it is most definitely not up to you to decide that your own arguments have been stronger than those of others; such an attempt is just deeply unethical. Also, given the fact that the result can most obviously not be read as a "consensus to keep" but, at best, a "no consensus" (and even that is a stretch), it is most definitely not legitimate for a user involved in the debate to make that call and talk about an "only possible decision". Finally, what on earth does it mean to talk about me and Peter being "involved"? I don't know about Peter, but as for me, well, of course I am, duh. But then, I didn't pretend to be qualified to close this. You did, and very wrongly so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I took into consideration the arguments of users who have been here for a long time and know how this project works, and also of canvassed users with just few or none contributions on this project before this matter comes up. Bearing this in mind, I think it is clear that there is no clear consensus for deletion of this and similar pages. I think I explained my decision more than enough. But feel free to let an uninvolved sysop (which also means not from en.wp) review my decision. Or perhaps SJ or Millosh? I'm fine with that. mickit 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "being from en.wp" have to do with anything? Thank you for confirming that your close was motivated by prejudice against one member project and that you have systematically discounted votes based on your biased perception of what project they come from. This is an entirely unacceptable attitude and really disqualifies you from doing any admin work at all here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's not up to you to bring such a decision, with all respect. And as I said before, I'm not surprised by these comments. All the best. mickit 15:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, your distinction between experienced and unexperienced users is not even based on solid counting. If you discount people with little or no prior Meta editing outside this dispute, then the consensus for deletion is still somewhere around 13:7. But it doesn't matter. We are all of us experienced wikimedians. The suggestion that people who are not regulars on Meta but are experienced on other projects should be given less of a voice here is simply wrong, and highly offensive at that. There is no such thing as the status of a "regular" on Meta, and there cannot be. Meta is the project shared by all wikimedians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

13:7 is not consensus. And for the last time: I took into consideration the arguments of all users, but we must distinguish between the arguments of users who have experience in this project and know how it works and those who came here for the first time. Even if you only count the votes (and we don't do just that), we have no strong consensus for deletion. So I believe that my decidion is OK and that you are aware of that. That's all I have to say. mickit 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we must not distinguish along those lines. It is absolutely wrong to do so. No matter how often I have edited on Meta before, my opinion on how Meta ought to be run counts exactly as much as yours. Exactly as much. Telling me that, "no, this is the way it's always be done here, because we are the regulars and we know the place and we say so" just doesn't cut it. Not on Meta. And I'll say it again: it is never okay for the weighing up of arguments to be done by somebody who has himself participated in the argument. A closure by an involved administrator might be okay if there really was a clear consensus and the closure was in line with that, but most certainly not when an administrator is basically awarding the victory to his own side. You have not responded to this challenge before; and I believe it is because you know it was wrong to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't convince me. And I'll say again: But feel free to let an uninvolved sysop (which also means not from en.wp) review my decision. Or perhaps SJ or Millosh? I'm fine with that. mickit 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not for me to choose an admin to do that. If you are willing to have your decision questioned, simply revert yourself and wait for somebody else to close it again. That's the only clean solution. (I note you have still not answered my challenge though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said what I had to say. mickit 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are involved and you voted; you are not neutral and you have abused your position. You should therefore undo it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

On the RfD page you stated that "some" admins agreed with your involved closure. As far, as I can tell the only one is Nemo, who was also clearly involved. Who else agreed with you? Or was your claim of some, not accurate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cao

Gledajpo tamo masi rukapo :D --SomeoneBehindYou (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A šta ti je ovo „po“? mickit 14:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Probaj satrovacki ovo ne ide na prevodiocu :D --SomeoneBehindYou (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Formal request to reopen the RfD

I have been in discussion with other Meta admins about how to approach this. I believe your close of the RfD was invalid, and your previous support of the outcome you decided made your close inappropriate. You had an evident conflict of interest which has been recognised and disputed. Please therefore reopen the RfD, and allow an uninvolved Meta administrator, somebody who did not vote, either confirm or overturn your decision. If you do not, I will have no choice but to send the page to RfD a second time, which I'd rather not do.

I can see no reasonable objection to this request, so in the interest of minimising the drama on all sides, it would look far better if an uninvolved administrator closed this contentious debate. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask on WM:RFH or better WM:RFD itself? It shouldn't be difficult to find a sysop to review the closure, if it's invalid. We have plenty fo them. Nemo 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said several times that I'm fine if any uninvolved sysop want to review my decision. So, feel free to ask any of neutral Meta admins to do it. You have my permission and full support to do so. I hope that will solve this problem, because it has never been my intention to do something that is not in the interest of this project. All the best. mickit 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That close did not show interest in the project. It showed only interest in yourself. You and Nemo are both heavily involved. The fact that you will not undo what you have done, after being asked by Peter Symonds, shows a lack of both maturity and judgement, on your part. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your comment on the RFD was "However, I really think that such things should not be deleted." It's just basic logic that when you express an opinion like that, you have no claim to be uninvolved and close the discussion. There might have been a case for closing as a no consensus, default to keep (though I don't read the debate that way) but there is no ase that you should have been the one to close it after voting on it. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Synchbot request

Hello Micki. Your request for global JavaScript on every wiki has been fulfilled (see the archived request & bot log). Best regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this :)--mickit 10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Velimir Ivanovic

Dear Micki, could you help me? Velimir Ivanovic has asked me on my home wiki (permalink) to unblock him on hr.wikipedia and I'm now trying to explain the (im)possibilities. However, I'm afraid he may not understand English well enough. Could you help him - e.g., by translating my message or perhaps by explaining some things in the Serbian language? Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I explained to him in Serbian, so I hope this will help. mickit 14:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Mathonius (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To both of you: I don´t know why, but he is jumping from one project to another asking the way to get rights. I think that Micki´s explanation will not earn some fruits. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I answered a lot of his questions on Wikipedia and via email. I don't know if this will help, but at least we can say that we explained to him everything he asked. He is not the first user who are attempting to get instantly the sysop or any other flag. mickit 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Zaključana stranica

Zašto si zaključao moju korisničku stranu na SR Wiki? -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Više puta su je menjali neprijavljeni korisnici za različitim IP adresama, te je zaključana dok (ako) ne budeš odblokiran. Kad (ako) se to desi, onda ti uređuj stranicu pod svojim korisničkim imenom. Pozdrav! micki 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jel možemo ti i ja da porazgovaramo u vezi mog bloka na SR Wiki? -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Već smo više puta razgovarali na tu temu. Na osnovu svih onih vandalizama i pretnji posle bloka, moj stav je da je blok opravdan. micki 05:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mene niko na Wikipediji neshvata to je problem nisam ja takav kako svi na Wikipediji misle. Pitam te lepo kad administratora na SR wiki da li je ispravno što sam dobijo trajan blok od Burgića. Burgić se okomio na mene, proganja me i svi ćute onda. Korisnik Maduixa je poznat po svojim provokacijama na i 3 minuta posle bloka sam dobio provokaciju na mojoj korisničkoj strani. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 10:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pitam te lepo kad administratora na SR wiki da li je ispravno što sam dobijo trajan blok od Burgića. Kao administrator na SR wiki, mislim da jeste. Za sada, ne vidim nijedan razlog za ukidanje ili smanjenje bloka. Čak naprotiv, svojim postupcima si jasno pokazao da je Burgina odluka bila ispravna. Molim te da više ne pretresamo tu temu, bar dok se okolnosti značajno ne promene i ne prođe još vremena. Hvala. micki 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Što mi lupi onaj šablon? To nije lepo od tebe. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Baš me briga za nalog Oliver Nedeljkovic i onako je lažan. Što si mi zaključao nalog Velimir Ivanovic kad si ga i onako blokirao. --93.86.243.134 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357

Ko ste Vi opšte ja Vas ne poznajem? Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More bit' bidne, a more bit' da ne bidne! micki 12:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Images

Why do you delete images that were licensed?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bci21 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Which image are we talking about? If you mean on File:Wikiversitate-logo.jpg, that image was not licensed nor used. micki 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357

Imam jedan problem sa korisničkim šablonima na SR Wiki kada sam dodao šablon Balkanska istorija od jednom su mi po celoj korisničkoj strani. Da li znaš do čega je problem? Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pozdrav

Micki, molim te pogledaj ovo, i reci mi šta da uradim dalje. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Manje-više se slažem sa onim što je rekao Billinghurst. To je problem koji treba rešavati lokalno, a ne na Meti. Na bs.wp je aktivno dosta administratora i oni će najbolje znati da li je blok opravdan ili ne i da li je dužina bloka odgovarajuća. Trenutno nemam vremena da se upuštam u detalje. Aktivan sam na wiki samo na momente u skladu sa slobodnim vremenim. Inače, postaviću tamo obaveštenje da si pokrenuo RfC na Meti da bi tamošnja zajednica bila u toku. micki 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

VP:AT

Molim te reši ovo. --Kolega2357 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nisam imao vremena da ranije odgovorim na ovo. Mislim da je bezveze da mi ostavljaš poruke po raznoraznim projektima i/ili da mi šalješ mejlove. Ono što se odnosi na sr.wp, možeš da napišeš tamo na svojoj stranici za razgovor. Ono što se odnosi na Metu, možemo da raspravimo ovde. Ono što se odnosi na neki treći projekat, možemo da raspravimo na tom projektu itd. Na mejl sam postavio filter tako da mi više u inbox ne stižu pojedine poruke. Što se tiče tvog bloka, s jedne strane nisam hteo ja da te blokiram jer nisi pravio veće probleme pod tim korisničkim imenom, ali s druge strane ima toliko kontroverzi u vezi sa tobom da ne osećam naročitu želju da se zalažem za ukidanje bloka. Znaš kako kažu: gde ima dima, ima i vatre. Dok god ne prestanu vandalizmi bilo koje vrste koji se dovode u vezu s tvojim imenom, teško da će naša zajednica imati razumevanja za tvoj slučaj. Toliko od mene. micki 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Primetio sam da tvoj bot šalje korisnicima informacije kad je slika ne licencirana šta treba da se ukuca u cmd da može to bot da radi? --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357-Bot

Možeš li mi dati zastavicu za mog interwiki bota? --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Naravno da ne, barem dok ti je osnovni nalog blokiran. micki 20:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Na koji to osnovni nalog misliš? --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Na ovaj. micki 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Da li možeš da primaš mailove od mene hteo bih nešto da te pitam nebih o tome javno? --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Možeš da mi pošalješ mejl. Međutim, nemoj da me shvatiš pogrešno, ukoliko to zaista ne bude nešto veoma (ali veoma) osetljivo zamoliću te da diskusiju nastavimo na javno vidljivim stranicama. Nadam se da je to OK, jer sam ograničio svoju komunikaciju putem mejla kada su u pitanju stvari koje se tiču trivijalnih stvari sa wiki projekata kao što su bot zastavice, patrolerska prava, sporovi oko sadržaja i sl. O svemu tome može da se razgovara na wiki stranicama. micki 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MickiBot

Možeš li mi reći kako da preko Pajtona uradim da može moj bot da obaveštava korisnike koji su poslali slike bez licence? --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ukucaj checkimages.py -help i dobićeš kompletno uputstvo za tu skriptu. Verovatno će ti trebati i dodatna podešavanja same skripte kako bi sve funkcionisalo. micki 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Osim toga, potrebno je napraviti i odgovarajuće šablone (koje će bot koristiti) i proveriti da li rade. micki 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Koje sve skripte tvoj bot koristi na srpskoj Vikipediji? --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nemam spisak. Kad mi nešto zatreba, onda to i koristim. A, osim toga, ne koristim uvek PWB. micki 21:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

E da dobro je da sam se setio. Kako se koristi AutoWiki browser kad imam bot zastavicu? --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ne postoji poseban režim rada sa i bez zastavice. Jedina razlika je u tome što se sa zastavicom izmene neće videti u skorašnjim izmenama. Detaljno uputstvo za rad sa AWB imaš ovde. micki 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kad ćeš da me odblokiraš na srpskoj Vikipediji prošlo je već 2 meseca? --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Na sr.wp si blokiran na neodređeno, odnosno na beskonačno. micki 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To znam. Pa i neodređni blokovi mora da isteknu. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ne, neodređeno znači da je neko blokiran za sva vremena ili da nije precizirano kada blok ističe. Međutim, nije redak slučaj da se takvi korisnici odblokiraju posle određenog vremena. Jedan korisnik je prošle godine odblokiran nakon dve godine trajanja bloka i do danas lepo uređuje i ne pravi probleme. Moje lično (neobavezujuće) mišljenje je da je još rano da se raspravlja o tvom odblokiranju, ali to ne znači da kao neprijavljeni korisnik ne možeš na Trgu da zatražiš od zajednice da preispita tvoj blok. Ako bude postojao konsenzus (ako se puno ljudi ne bude protivilo tom zahtevu), neko od admina će te odblokirati. U suprotnom, neće. To je to. micki 08:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops

Možeš li glasati protiv ovoga? --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Masovno brisanje slika prebačenih na Commons

Da li možeš da obrišeš slike masovno prebačene na Commons koje sam prebacivao sa srpske Wikipedije? --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mogu, naravno. micki 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ovde ima ceo spisak slika. Kad završiš zamolio bih te da ukloniš ceo sadržaj sa stranice. --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Još 16 slika sa spiska gore obriši koje sam prebacio na Commons. --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Inače, ne moraš praviti te spiskove nakon prebacivanja. Svi duplikati će i tako biti obrisani u okviru redovnog održavanja. micki 08:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Sysop mistake on BG Wiki

Možeš li da se uključiš u raspravu? --Kolega2357 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Videću, kasnije, kada proučim o čemu se radi. Ali ništa ne obećavam. Sad nemam vremena, zaista. micki 18:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pogledao sam o čemu se radi. Radije se ne bih mešao. Ne želim ništa da prejudiciram, niti bilo šta tvrdim, ali su i ranije otvoreni proksiji dovođeni u vezu sa tobom i veoma je sumnjivo (barem meni) da samo ti imaš problema sa tim anonimcima i to ne samo na jednom ili na par, već na većem broju projekata. Sve to skupa, a i neke stvari od ranije, me veoma obeshrabruju da ulazim u čitavu priču i branim bilo koga. Srećno ti bilo. micki 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tegel je proverio te proksije i dokazao je da nisam ja to uradio samom sebi. Što si obeshraben? Čemu tolika subjektivnost prema meni? --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Da sam subjektivan i zlonameran, podržao bih blok. Međutim, ne želim to da radim jer ne postoje čvrsti dokazi (kao što si i sam rekao), niti smatram da bi od toga bilo neke koristi. Štaviše, mislim da svi zaslužuju drugu ili treću šansu. Ali, isto tako, nisam spreman da branim bilo koga ako postoji sumnja da je nešto radio namerno. Ti si svakako svestan da ovo nije prvi put da se dovodiš u vezu sa otvorenim proksijima. Zar ne? U ranijem periodu sam malo više pratio dešavanja i u nekoliko slučajeva na raznim projektima ti si se „borio“ sa otvorenim proksijima što je, moram priznati, delovalo malčice sumnjivo. Sada je, po ko zna koji put, problem nastao opet zbog otvorenih proksija. Meni se već „pale neke lampice“. Zato ne želim da učestvujem u raspravi - odnosno niti želim da pomažem niti da odmažem što je (mislim) sasvim OK. Zapravo, da sam na tvom mestu, na jedno duže vreme bih se manuo vandala u bilo kom obliku i počeo da pišem članke i sarađujem sa drugima. To je sve što imam da kažem na ovu temu. Sorry ako sam previše direktan, ali smatram da je tako najbolje. micki 18:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

E izvini ako sam bio malo grup prema tebi administrator se dozvao pameti. Svako dobro od mene. Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Miraš Dedeić na Commonsu

Ne moguće je da je [1] slika javno vlasništvo. Preuzeta je odavde. --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

IRC

Hello, just a little note requested by an wikimedia-admin operator: Your access to the IRC channel #wikimedia-admin^connect will be revoked due to you no longer holding administrator access on any Wikimedia wiki. If this is a mistake and you currently do hold these permissions on any wiki and access has been removed feel free to re-request access at operator requests or ask an operator to restore access. Regards, John F. Lewis (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated scripts

Hi Micki. I edited your global.js and templates.js to update you to the latest version of force ltr and TemplateScript, which are compatible with the latest MediaWiki changes and reside on the Wikimedia Tool Labs for easier updates. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)