All posts by RePeat
Hi, sometimes. :P
~~~
Hence my last sentence. "And they don't even call it hacking."
Perhaps some people do not consider certain things "hacking." My definition of the word would be more like "the act of violating someone's privacy without asking". Call it what you like. Trolling? I don't care. I believe it's a terrible breech in personal security and should never be done unless under extreme circumstances. If someone does it, that lowers my respect for them immensely. If you're fine with being "hacked", or if you prefer a different word, use it, then you support. And I won't waste my time trying to change your mind because you'll just shoot me down like a fly. I have spoken my opinion, I ask you to respect both it and me.
Edward Nigma wrote:
RePeat wrote: Frankly, DK, I was not merely speaking in the fact that Brickimedia is smaller and thus an easier system to hack, but of the Staff there.
Smaller than Wikia, I presume. And it's easier to hack the sysadmins? Pure... Logic?
No, the sysamins hack. And they don't even call it hacking.
RePeat wrote: Frankly, DK, I was not merely speaking in the fact that Brickimedia is smaller and thus an easier system to hack, but of the Staff there.
Okay then, substitute "staff" with "community". I know that several people are highly capable of such and one or two that I've witnessed and you know exactly what I'm talking about. I know it can happen here but I'm extremely wary of Brickimedia because it makes it that much easier.
Frankly, DK, I was not merely speaking in the fact that Brickimedia is smaller and thus an easier system to hack, but of the Staff there.
Edward Nigma wrote: Opposing is futile. Plus, it's not like your even gonna make it not pass.
MeltE2 wrote:
Yay! Two opposers! This is definitely not gonna pass, right? Opposing is futile. Plus, it's not like your even gonna make it not pass.
2 + 2 = 5
Ooh, I like that white text. c:
How nice of you to point it out. Took a bit longer than expected, but, whatever.
No, I saw it. But I chose not to reply to that specific part - else it would, once more, corrupt my image even more. 
</noscript> 
I oppose partnering with Brickimedia for several reasons.
- Users coming from Brickimedia to LMBWikia will usually have absolutely no idea what our wikia is technically about. This will of course carry no benefit to our wikia (just think about it.) and in some cases may have a negative effect.
- I am concerned about users going from LMBWikia to Brickimedia. Privacy is an issue with many of us, I believe, and Brickimedia is much easier to invade than LMBWikia.
- Users from Brickimedia and users from LMBWikia do not have the best of track records in getting along with each other. There is no reason why we should physically endorse one another.
- Meiko, one of Brickimedia's site operators, is globally blocked on wikia. Wikia would not be happy to support his branched-off website, so this may lead to unwanted arguments with wikia staff.
Please don't come at my comment like cats after a mouse. It seems very silly and extremely immature to try and change my mind. I have voiced my opinion, and I fully oppose enforcing Brickimedia, as you support it. I have not gone after your "I support."s and I ask you to respect my opinions as well. They won't change anything, I know, but since your opinion of someone goes down everytime they put out a simple "I oppose." towards your big ideas, I am obligated to keep what little good image of myself alive.
Pear-a-peef Talk Blogs Me 04:05 March 17, 2014
What if Wikia removed it? :o :P
Conspiritor!!
</noscript>
Just to clarify, the log posted is "cut up", and likely completely out of context. Before we come to a decision, we should read the full log.
The whole chat log. :P
Just to clarify, the log posted is "cut up", and likely completely out of context. Before we come to a decision, we should read the full log.
Actually, the other parts were very relevant IMO. :P
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:137909?action=history&sort=of&page=2
Never shows deletion.
Right. And I don't believe anyone else has a log to continue it. So we can't take any real action against MC, correct? There isn't enough swaying evidence.
Just to clarify, the log posted is "cut up", and likely completely out of context. Before we come to a decision, we should read the full log.
It's not necessarily fair to make these points without a clear log. Until I see one, I'm neutral.
Peat-a-peat
Talk
Blogs
Me
17:58
January 28, 2014
I say we promote Obi right now, and then maybe wait a while before getting a third. I mean, we lived with just Drew and DB for quite a while, I think we can manage with only Obi and Drew for a while.
This sounds like a plan.
Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:
TwistedAlpha wrote:
I don't really see why we need three, or even two, CheckUsers. One is enough. It's not like there's a constant stream of people whose IPs need to be checked, let alone enough for three to be necessary.
Oppose to everyone.
</noscript>
Actually, I believe Wikia won't allow us to have just one CheckUser. With just one, there is not enough accountability. Having three CheckUsers is the usual number, and it is also the safest. Having two is okay, but having one is not acceptable. I understand your opinion (in fact, I originally thought we didn't need any more CheckUses as well), but we really do need more, preferably three.
Agreed that we need 3, but like Jed said, I do not like the idea of BCG being the third. Rio would be one suggestion.
RePeat wrote:
Drew1200 wrote:
RePeat wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</noscript>
JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username.
</noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
Thanks Drew, you've made me feel so much better.
</noscript>
Whoops.
</noscript> JK.
But, on a serious note, I have heard over and over about this log, and I'm sorry, but it makes me feel nonetheless safer for whatever reason.