User talk:Vermont/Archive/2019

User:Vermont/SE/2019

Hey, hope this guide will be developed well, all the best, will be useful for new voters like us. For a moment I thought you are running for steward. I will support wholeheartedly if you do so. Thanks and Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, thanks! Yeah, it’s just a guide; I have no intention of running. Being that I converse and contribute with stewards so often I thought it beneficial to create one. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Will be helpful to those who don't. All the best!--Cohaf (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

CU

Hi, I think I will comment here, rather than causing that to be longer. I think this and the underlying issues are complex, if I have the time I'll drop you a mail. Since there is a block issued and there is an unblock request, and since is something from my homewiki, I am still quite shocked and will not comment further and let the sysops here handle it. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, thanks for your comment. I’m not fully informed on the whole situation and past events, but what I saw today on SRCU was inflammatory and unacceptable. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll email you soon, if I can find time as I'm quite busy cross wiki and IRL, I'm sure you too. Abstain from further comments but meta:urbanity is something I'll always uphold when editing here, but I can't speak for others. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

simple english version of this stuff

noted your main contributions are to simple english. Do you have any advice as to how to proceed there? which policies should i read first? again thanks for your help :) E.3 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a highly complex essay-like article. It would take a lot of work to get it ready for simplewiki, and even then it may not be kept as it's not something people can reliably, neutrally write about. The article nearly has a thesis; it reads like an essay and selectively picks sources. I don't believe subjects like this, comparing two things in this manner, are encyclopedic. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Process

Go through all the previously closed RFCs; there is no such requirement. Common sense and all that. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is no administrative action to be taken, and the decision is nothing, then it is reasonable for a moribund request from comment to be closed by an experienced person without an interest. Someone can always dispute and revert.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Odd, I remember reading somewhere that RfC's should only be closed by meta admins and stewards. Also not sure how common sense plays into this. If there are no written closing guidelines for RfC's, we should probably have an RfC to decide them. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Because of global ban policy which is actually not a policy at all for me billinghurst see this File:Global-bans-process-workflow.svg, per Global bans, I feel weird why meta admins can decide global bans, and I think we should relegate this completely to Stewards, and yes, I also think the normal RFC should also be closed by stewards, not meta Admins, I need more input about this, as I may be wrong.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 11:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You may have missed the "no administrative action", "nothing decision", and "moribund" components of my answer. RFCs have always have componentry, and never been enforceable decisions upon stewards. There has always been that sense here, especially with regard to the complexity of language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahaaa, I suppose we should follow that kind of exception, rather than sticking to the over-bureaucracy per that image. I do have a question though billinghurst if the almost dead RFC is closed by non meta admins or stewards but then the closing is contested by another user, what should we do?--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 11:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When anyone disputes a close or action it should get reviewed, first by the closer, and they can always flick pass it to someone else. It becomes an open RFC, and we can apply our processes. I like the application of reason and sense and binary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up after 125.166.92.190. What a pain. Now I'm probably on his speed dial for the next month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank whoever made that abuse filter! If it didn't get blocked for that 2 hours we'd still be waiting for an admin or for them to get bored. Vermont (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | Türkçe | русский | العربية | Tiếng Việt | edit

Congratulations, Vermont! You now have the rights of an administrator on Meta-Wiki. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin^connect. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta. Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List of administrators and the Template:List of administrators. You're also allowed to subscribe the metawiki admins private mailing list. Again, congratulations and welcome to the team. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Congrats. :) --Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Answer

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions#%E1%83%AF%E1%83%94%E1%83%9D@ka.wikiquote

--ჯეო (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

/* beautytohealth.com */

I visited beautytohealth.com after almost falling for a scam product advertised on facebook. I was happy to see the website alert its readers about scams on the free trials. I am a daily reader of this website and came to know that the website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. Just because it was spammed with non-existing links.

My question is - How can wikipedia blacklist a website based on something like this?

Does this mean that anyone can spam wikipedia with links and wikipedia will simply blacklist that website?

I think you guys need to re-think about this.

I see no possibility for that website to be used for a legitimate encyclopedic/beneficial purpose. Vermont (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what you think as an individual. I am sure the website owner had nothing to offer under the table like other website owners do.

Are you implying we only blacklist sites because they don't pay us money? Vermont (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly to sign your edits. Also I'm pretty sure no one cares what the owner of a scammy spam site thinks. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yea right. Just do a simple search on Google and see how many of your editors take money to add links on Wikipedia. That is not a surprise I guess. BTW, I don't own any website. 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You profoundly misunderstand the purpose of any Wikimedia projects. Have a nice day. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You profoundly have no answer or explanation to what I say. 17:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes...those people are breaking the Terms of Use. Editing for money without disclosing it is not permitted. Vermont (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is ... LOL. I will leave it here. I am not happy how this has been handled. I guess using the "unethical" techniques is only the way to live in this world. Sad... but true. 2406:3400:30F:B9D0:74E2:58C:AAA4:944D 17:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Were we to blacklist sites who didn't give us money, wouldn't we give sites the opportunity to give money? That has not happened. Editors who are paid to edit and do so in a harmful manner or do not disclose are blocked indefinitely per the Terms of Use. Your accusations are baseless and you are no longer welcome on my talk page due to your previous comments. Vermont (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Truth Hurts :( 2406:3400:30F:B9D0:74E2:58C:AAA4:944D 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mis Bloqueos

Hola Vermont

Muchas gracias por tu explicación.
Pero te agradeceria mucho que me hiciran Checkuser en todas las wikis, con todos los titeres que dicen que tengo por favor
Con la finalidad de desmentir una vez por todas todas las acusaciones falsas en mi contra. Te lo agredecería mucho.
No es para nada exagerado decir que Cuatro Remos ha estado de tras de todos mis bloqueos y de todas las guerras de ediciones
He pisado el palito y le ha resultado fantastico para él.
Lleva años en lo mismo como se puede apreciar facilmente.
Esperando que me hagan Checkuser, te Saluda afectuosamente --Historiadormundo (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yo no soy un checkuser; no puedo ayudar con eso. Yo solicito a tú: por favor, detenes calumniar a Cuatro Remos. Si tu desees a culpar Cuatro Remos para tus problemas, proporcionar evidencia. (No en Meta-Wiki pero a el projecto donde estás bloqueado. Meta-Wiki no es para apelando bloqueados en otros projectos.) De otra manera, puede ser interpretado como un ataque personale. Gracias, Vermont (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hola Vermont Muchas gracias por tu explicación y por tú actuar equilibrado ; lo unico que yo pretento es paz y tranquilidad; coloborar positivamente, y si me equivoco me lo digan en forma razonable y civilizada (no con reversiones reversiones y reversiones), muchas gracias y espero que algún día me desbloqueen en Commons.--Historiadormundo (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting AWB access

Hey Vermont. I was wondering if you would be willing to grant me AWB access here on metawiki? I originally asked at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-08#Requesting AWB access, but that was archived without a response from Base. I intend to use AWB to remove old translation tags from pages that were never actually marked for translation, while making it clear in my edit summary that, if translation is still desired, users should be free to revert my edits. This is so that translation admins don't go through and mark for translation pages that are no longer needed / should not have been translated in the first place. I am familiar with using AWB, and have access on enwiki. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw that Base had concerns with granting access, and being that translations are not an area I work in, I don't feel comfortable accepting this request. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

86.179.153.52

Please block this IP 86.179.153.52 (talk · contribs)--WikiBayer 👤💬 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Done by Tegel. Regards, Vermont (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sincere, concise, and direct discussion

I appreciate people who are able to understand me quickly, and who can communicate much more meaning in fewer words than I am able to do. Great interaction and thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, thanks! One of my favorite characteristics of the wiki model is being able to converse constructively with people of differing opinions. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Pings

While I accept your apology here, an experienced user like yourself (especially being an administrator here at meta and a global sysop) needs to be able to distinguish the noticeably difference in colour between a regular ping and {{noping}}. More importantly, not checking basic facts before issuing some kind of warning to another similarly (if not more) experienced user is inflammatory, and in your own words, not "constructive" to a civil discourse. Having higher privileges across Wikimedia projects comes with more scrutiny, and I am speaking from experience. I hope I will not be seeing another careless action like that one by you again. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I had neglected to check the wikimarkup, and that is an issue that will not be repeated and one I sincerely apologize for. However, that does not detract from the fact that your comment was hostile in general, not specifically were you to have pinged them. Advocating that "poor editors" who are distressed by Fram is good is quite problematic. I have no comment as to the validity of Fram's actions, however it seems to me as though you are attempting to justify perceived harassment by saying that people who you classify as poor editors deserve to be distressed. This is quite troublesome as well: "Please don't speak on behalf of the "wider community", something in which you have minimal understanding of..." Comments like that, simply put, do not add to the conversation. Fram and others are having serious discussion on their talk page and you interject with a paragraph of insults. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Greek for your userpage

Hello!

Reading Meta:Requests for comment/Multi-lang meta user page, I had a look at your userpage. Just in case you'd like to add some Greek, here is the translation:

Γειά σας είμαι ο Vermont! Είμαι κυρίως ενεργός στην Βικιπαίδεια στα απλά αγγλικά, όπου είμαι διαχειριστής, καθώς και στο SWMT.

Μπορείτε να επικοινωνήσετε μαζί μου σε κάποια από τις σελίδες συζήτησής μου, στο IRC (στο Freenode ως Vermont), ή με email στο vermont@vtwp.org.

Regards. —Ah3kal (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be sure to add it in later today. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

YGM

Hello Vermont, please check your mail. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit

Hi Vermont, can you please just talk again to Calvinkulit about him doing edits without consensus? I don't want to get into an edit war with him at Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator on commons; if there are issues with their conduct there, it should be managed by Commons administrators. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Its referring to the page Wikimedia Commons, if I'm not mistaken --DannyS712 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, didn't notice that. I'll manage it. Vermont (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for being unclear. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment requested unblock, which I subsequently declined at this time. Also noticed that they are blocked at enWP, through didn't dig into their contributions to see the issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Szl.wiki needs your help again

Hi,

we having trouble with anonymous user pasting description of one plant into hundreds of articles about another plants, which is senseless and we considering it as vandalism. We need massive deletion of articles created by this IP: https://szl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szpecyjalna:Wkład/193.235.207.32

Thanks in advance, Lajsikonik (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Done @Lajsikonik: you should have been able to do that for yourselves. From w:szl:special:contributions/193.235.207.32 you should see a link to mass delete/masowe usuwanie. From there you can delete new creations that are kept within RecentChanges.

If this is recurring problem. then I would suggest writing some abusefilters to prevent IP editors creating new pages, and include one or two repeating components of the deleted posts that you can use to identify and prevent the additions. If you need help with filters, then ping me on my talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

requesting unblock

wikivoyage a admin bullying me i have skitzoeffective disease.

74.124.128.104

Baozon90 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Not something I can help with, sorry. Vermont (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

AP -> P

Hi Vermont, could you assign me the patroller rights to fight vandalism when necessary? I'll only use it on mainspace pages and user talk pages after the vandal has been blocked. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As I was the editor who granted you rollback on the Simple English Wikipedia, I'd rather another administrator review this request. Please ask at RFH. Best, Vermont (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright :) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Lenguas nahuas

Señor Vermont;

Buenas tardes; tengo que comunicarle que no existe administrador local, por eso es que estoy dando mantenimiento a una cantidad de basura informática que generó allí por ignorancia de mucha gente que desconoce o es ignorante en las lenguas nahuas; ahora que he enderezado el proyecto, se me ha bloqueado por eliminar la basura de forma injusta, una vez más la ignorancia en el náhuatl los hace trabajar como burócratas y no como conocedores de las lenguas nahuas; pues debe usted saber, que ahora se coloca la traducción de forma directa y ya no se usa plantilla, se hace de la misma forma que se hace en otros idiomas.

Soy uno de los pocos conocedores de las lengua nahuas y mis bloqueos ya se discutieron, eso fue un linchamiento que se hizo en mi contra y allí hay mucho material al respecto. Lamentablemente los proyectos en lenguas de américa son una porquería por el hecho de nunca han sido editados por hablantes nativos, el náhuatl no es un idioma, son muchos idiomas que forman parte de una macro lengua llamada náhuatl.

Le daré referencias de porque se solicita el desbloqueo, ya que en este momento soy el único que puede eliminar la basura de Wikipidia, porque soy conocedor del tema. Aquí le pondré información para se meta al tema y tenga opiniones más elocuentes [1] [2]. Así que sigue pidiendo el desbloqueo de este y de otros proyectos relacionados con el náhuatl en los que se hizo una artimaña de bloqueos en cadena para buscar despretigio en mi contra. Que tenga usted una bonita noche y gracias por escuchar sobre el linchamiento que se tiene en mi contra, el cual no les ha funcionado debido a que la verdad sale pro encima de todo.--Marrovi (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You went on a spree blanking pages created by currently-inactive established users, and tagging hundreds of such pages for deletion. It's best to fix them, not to delete them, if you have problems with the pages. Those edits are disruptive. There's a significant amount of content that you removed, apparently without a good reason. Also, your comments here are unnecessarily harsh and demonstrates an evident problem engaging in a wiki-style community, also shown by your blocks on other projects. I want to clarify: this is not a lynching, this is not a directed attack on you, and you are not the only person qualified to edit pages in the Nahua language and it's variants. Vermont (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will note that the scope of global sysops do not include content disputes; your block is not over anything content related, and is due to mass blanking, which is disruptive. Vermont (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Saludos; aquí les dejo a mi amigo Victoriano, que el único usuario en todo Wikipedia que habla el idioma náhuatl como lengua materna, ni el tal Akapochtli ni otros usuarios mexicanos hablan náhuatl en su casa como Victoriano; su cuenta es User:Tepoxteco, trátenlo bien y apoyen-le en todo para que Wikipedia en lengua náhuatl sea recuperado por los hablantes maternos como Tepoxteco y se cumplan los objetivos de Wikipedia, ya que muchos administradores de Wikimedia no tienen buenos modales para tratarnos bien a nosotros los americanos. Yo soy descendiente de judíos sefardíes y esa es mi cultura materna, no soy indígena soy un mexicano con sangre judía, pero no se preocupen por mí, los judíos, a lo largo de la historia ya estamos acostumbrados a no ser tratados bien por parte del llamado hombre blanco; pero amo a los pueblos indígenas, he estudiado las lenguas de México y comparto nacionalidad mexicana con mis hermanos de los pueblos originarios de América. Otro punto, es que nosotros usamos el castellano como lingua franca, no usamos inglés porque es la lengua del pueblo que nos oprime como nación, es la lengua mayoritaria de vecino incómodo y es la lengua que quiere intenta desplazar nuestras lenguas maternas.--Marrovi (discusión) 11:35 31 Icmahtlac m 2019 (UTC)

Les vuelvo a repetir, yo solo mantuve a flote este proyecto de Wikcionario para que tenga uso, ustedes me bloquearon de la manera más injusta aprovechándose de chismes de lavadero que se dicen sobre mi persona, no soy tonto, no nací ayer, fue obvio. Si borré las plantillas es porque son obsoletas y ya no tienen uso, lo mejor es colocar la traducción de manera directa, además no conviene tenerlas activas dentro del proyecto, otro detalle es yo si he estudiado idioma náhuatl, lo cual es imposible que cometa vandalismo. Pero si mi presencia les incomoda, allí tienen a mi amigo Tepoxteco que si es un verdadero hablante nativo del náhuatl, es quien dará continuidad a los proyectos de su lengua porque es activista digital de su lengua materna, el náhuatl. Que tengan un buen día.--Marrovi (discusión) 11:46 31 Icmahtlac m 2019 (UTC)

y sobre el baneo que se intentó hacia mi persona, si fue un linchamiento de mala leche que quisieron llevar acabo algunos usuarios buscando bloquearme en varios proyectos para generar una mala imagen de mi persona, eso está aclarado y respaldado por usuarios de wikimedia, donde conservamos rastreos y conversaciones privadas de como se planeó como expulsarme de todos los proyectos Wikipedia, todas las causas parecen de buena fue, pero fue una mala conducta por parte de estos usuarios que no se pudo replicar contra mi persona debido a que aquí todo mundo vigila a todo mundo, me alegra que el caso haya llegado a muchos idiomas diferentes porque se notó el mal comportamiento de muchos sysops que tienen hacia otras personas al grado de denigrarlos de vándalos y delincuentes que atentan contra el proyecto cuando muchas veces solo son errores cometidos y no daños colaterales. No presumo de ser una buena persona, pero he hecho un gran activismo de defensa de lenguas minoritarias que otros usuarios han sido incapaces de promover, eso les ha causado envidias y celos que arremeten contra mi como si yo quisiera desplazarlos de sus objetivos políticos dentro de Wikipedia; estas personas creyeron que iban a destrozarme de la misma manera que lo hacen con otros usuarios, pero no les funcionó.--Marrovi (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [3] Not that pointing it out over yonder is going to be worth the trouble. GMG^talk 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding

Hello Vermont! Yes, I am Chickenwings10. Yet I'd appreciate if we do not have that conversation on the public page as I want to keep my volunteer and official account separate. I understand that your question is in regards to the chart and image on the UCoC page. For that, I must tell you that there was a slight confusion at the beginning regarding my accounts and thus I uploaded those with my volunteer account. The image and the chart are work in progress and when uploading new charts I'll be henceforth using my staff account.--NNair (WMF) (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

NNair, thank you for your response. I was under the impression it was common practice for WMF employees to disclose their volunteer accounts. Especially considering that your volunteer account hasn't really done anything, it's not as though you're protecting any information. Vermont (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Vermont/GS Delete.js

Hi, I found it not working on neither Safari nor Firefox. Is that the case for you? And I'd like to work on it to fit it for advanced mobile view as well :) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I replied on IRC. Vermont (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)