User talk:Vapmachado

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta![edit]

أهلا Vapmachado ، ومرحبا بك في ويكيميديا ميتا ويكي! يعمل هذا الموقع على تنسيق ومناقشة كل مشاريع ويكيميديا. ربما سيكون مفيدا لك مطالعة صفحة السياسات هنا. إذا كنت مهتما بأمور الترجمة، راجع ميتا:بابلون. يمكنك أيضا ترك ملاحظة في ميتا:بابل (من فضلك راجع أولا التعليمات هناك قبل ترك الملاحظة). إذا أردت الاستفسار عن شئ ، لا تتردد في سؤالي في صفحة نقاشي. تمتع بالتحرير هنا!

Hola Vapmachado! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel o al Meta:Metapub (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

Vítejte, uživateli Vapmachado, a vítejte na Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Tento server je určen pro spolupráci a diskusím ke všem projektům nadace Wikimedia. Možná si budete chtít přečíst naše pravidla. Pokud chcete spolupracovat na překladech, navštivte Meta:Babylon. Také můžete přidat příspěvek na Meta:Babel či Meta:Metapub (nejdříve si přečtěte pokyny na začátku těchto stránek). V případě potřeby se neváhejte zeptat se na mé diskusní stránce. Hodně štěstí!

Hallo Vapmachado, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Webseite dient der Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia-Projekte. Vielleicht findest Du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Sofern Du daran interessiert bist etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel oder Meta:Metapub hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seiten, bevor Du etwas schreibst). Wenn Du möchtest, kannst Du mir auch auf meiner Diskussionseite Fragen stellen. Fröhliches Bearbeiten wünscht

ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ މީޓާ-ވިކީ އަށް މަރުހަބާ! މިވެބްސައިޓަކީ ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ ހުރިހާ މަޝްރޫޢުތަކާއި ބެހޭގޮތުން ވާހަކަތައް ދެކެވި އެ މަޝްރޫޢެއް ހިންގައި ހަދާ ވެބް ސައިޓެވެ. އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ޤަވާއިދުތައް ފުރަތަމަ ވިދާޅުވުމަކީ މުހިންމު ކަމެއް ކަމުގައި ދެކެމެވެ. ތަރުޖަމާކުރާ ހިތްޕުޅުވެވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ މީޓާ:ބެބިލޯން އަށް ވަޑައިގަންނަވާށެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެހެންމެ މިކަމާއި ބެހޭ ލިޔުމެއް މީޓާ:ބޭބެލް ގައި ލިޔުއްވަވާށެވެ. (އެހެންނަމަވެސް އެޞަފްޙާގައި އެއްވެސް އެއްޗެއް އިތުރު ކުރެއްވުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ ޞަފްހާގެ މަތީގައިވާ ޢިބާރާތް ވިދާޅުވެލައްވާށެވެ.) މިއާއި މުދު ހިތްހަމަޖެހިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ އަށް އެދުމަށް މި ޞަފްހާ ގައި އެދުމަށް ފަސްޖެހި ވަޑައި ނުގަންނަވާށެވެ. އުނިއިތުރު ގެނައުމުގައި އުފާވެރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ހޭދަ ކޮށްލައްވާށެވެ!!

Hello Vapmachado, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

¡Hola Vapmachado! ¡Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. ¡Buena suerte!

سلام Vapmachado ، به ويكی مديا متاويكیخوش آمدید! این وبگاه برای بحث و هماهنگ کردن ويكي مديا است. برای شما مفید است که اول صفحه سیاست های اینجا را بخوانید. اگر شما علاقمند به ترجمه هستید به صفحه متا:بابیلون سر بزنید. همچنین اگر یادداشتی داشتید می توانیید در متا:بابل یادداشت خود را بگذارید (قبل از نوشتن یادداشت به توضیحات موجود در صفحه توجه کنید.). اگر سوالی داشتید می توانید در صفحه بحث. سوال خود را بپرسید و کمک بخواهید!

Hei Vapmachado, ja tervetuloa Wikimedian Meta-Wikiin! Tämä nettisivusto on kaikkien Wikimedia-säätiön projektien koordinointia ja keskustelua varten. Saattaa olla hyödyllistä lukea käytäntömme. Jos olet kiinnostunut käännöksistä, käy Meta:Babylon-sivulla. Voit myöskin jättää huomautuksen Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub -sivulle (ole hyvä ja lue ohjeet sivun yläosassa ennenkuin kirjoitat sinne). Jos haluat, saat vapaasti kysyä minulta kysymyksiä keskustelusivullani. Iloisia muokkaushetkiä!

Bonjour Vapmachado, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel ou Meta:Metapub (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

Ola Vapmachado! Benvido a Meta-Wiki, da Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio é para coordinar e discutir sobre calquera dos proxectos da Fundación Wikimedia. Tavez lle sexa útil ler a nosa páxina de políticas (en inglés). Se lle interesan as traducións, visite Meta:Babylon. Tamén pode deixar unha mensaxe en Meta:Babel ou en Meta:Metapub (pero antes de facelo, por favor lea as instrucións situadas no alto da páxina). Non dubide en preguntar se ten calquera dúbida, ou pregunte na miña páxina de conversa. Boa sorte!

נכתב בלשון זכר למען הנוחות
היי Vapmachado, וברוך בואך ל- ויקימדיה מטא-ויקי! אתר זה נועד בכדי לתאם פעולות ולדון בפרויקטים של וויקימדיה. יש להניח שדפי המדיניות שלנו יהיו שימושיים עבורך. אם הנך מעוניין לבצע עבודות תרגום, בקר ב-Meta:Babylon. תוכל גם להשאיר הערה ב-Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (אנא קרא את ההוראות בראש הדף לפני כתיבה שם). אם תרצה, הרגש חופשי לרשום לי שאלות בדף השיחה שלי. עריכה נעימה!

Pozdrav Vapmachado, i dobro došli na na Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ova stranica služi za koordinaciju i raspravljanje oko Wikimedijinih projekata. Vjerojatno će Vam biti korisno pročitati naše stranice vezane za politiku rada. Ako ste zainteresirani za prevođenje, posjetite Meta:Babylon. Možete također ostaviti poruku na stranicama Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (molimo pročitajte upute na vrhu te stranice prije nego što pošaljete tamo svoj komentar). Ako imate neko pitanje, možete ga postaviti na mojoj stranici za razgovor. Sretno uređivanje!

Helló Vapmachado, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Halló Vapmachado, vertu velkomin(n) á Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Þessi síða er til að ræða saman um öll Wikimedia-verkefni og samhæfa þau. Kannski finnst þér gagnlegt að lesa stefnusíðuna. Hafir þú áhuga á þýðingum er Meta:Babylon rétti staðurinn. Þú mátt skrifast á við okkur í Meta:Babel eða Meta:Metapub (vinsamlegast lestu notkunarreglurnar áður en þú breytir síðunni). Hikaðu ekki við að hafa samband við mig á spjallsíðu minni ef þú hefur einhverjar spurningar. Gangi þér vel!

Halo Vapmachado, dan selamat datang di Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Situs web ini berperan sebagai tempat koordinasi dan diskusi mengenai seluruh proyek-proyek Wikimedia. Mungkin akan bermanfaat bagi Anda untuk membaca halaman kebijakan kami. Jika Anda tertarik untuk melakukan penerjemahan, kunjungi Meta:Babylon. Anda juga dapat meninggalkan pesan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (bacalah petunjuk di bagian atas halaman tersebut sebelum meninggalkan pesan di sana). Jika perlu, Anda dapat bertanya kepada saya di halaman pembicaraan (talk page) saya. Selamat menyunting!

Ciao Vapmachado! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Vapmachadoさん、ウィキメディア メタ・ウィキへようこそ!このサイトは、ウィキメディアのプロジェクト間の調整や話し合いを目的としています。もしよろしければ、基本方針とガイドラインのページを是非ご一読ください。もし翻訳に興味をお持ちなら、Meta:Babylon をご覧ください。Meta:Babel, Metapub にメッセージを投稿していただくことも可能です(投稿前にページ上部の説明をお読みください)。お困りの際は、ご遠慮なく私の会話ページに質問をお寄せください。楽しくやっていきましょう。どうぞよろしくお願いします。

Vapmachado님, 위키미디어 메타 위키에 회원가입하신 것을 환영합니다! 이 사이트는 모든 위키미디어 프로젝트들 간의 상호조정과 토론을 위한 공간입니다. 우리의 정책을 보면, 도움이 되실 겁니다. 만약 번역에 관심이 있으시다면, 바빌론을 방문해 보세요. 또한 바벨, 메타퍼브를 사용하실 수도 있습니다. (사용하시기 전에 각 문서의 사용설명을 먼저 읽어주세요). 만약 궁금한 것이 있으시면, 부담없이 저의 토론 문서에 질문을 올려주세요. 즐거운 편집이 되시길 바랍니다!

Hai Vapmachado, dan selamat datang ke Meta-Wiki Wikimedia! Laman web ini adalah untuk mengkoordinasikan dan membincangkan segala Projek Wikimedia. Anda boleh mendapat banyak faedah dengan membaca laman polisi kami. Jika anda berminat menterjemah, silalah lawati Meta:Babylon. Anda juga boleh meninggalkan pesanan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (sila baca panduan di atas laman yang berkenaan sebelum meninggalkan pesanan). Jika perlu, tanyalah soalan di laman perbualan saya. Selamat menyunting!

Hallo Vapmachado, en welkom op de Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Deze website is voor het coördineren en bespreken van alle Wikimedia-projecten. Waarschijnlijk vind je het handig om onze beleidpagina te lezen. Als je geïnteresseerd bent in het vertalen van teksten, ga da naar Meta:Babylon. Je kunt ook een bericht achterlaten op Meta:Babel of Meta:Metapub (lees wel de instructies aan het begin van de pagina voordat je een bericht achterlaat). Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze me dan op mijn overlegpagina. Veel plezier met bewerken!

Hei Vapmachado, og velkommen til Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Denne siden er til for å diskutere og samordne alle Wikimediaprosjektene. Vil du vite mer om siden, kan vår policy-side komme til nytte. Er du interessert i å hjelpe til med oversettelser, besøk Meta:Babylon. Du kan også legge igjen en beskjed på Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (vær vennlig og les instruksjonene øverst på siden før du skriver noe der). Hvis du vil, er du velkommen til å stille spørsmål på min diskusjonsside. God redigering!

Cześć Vapmachado i witaj w projekcie Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ta strona została stworzona do koordynacji i dyskusji nad wszystkimi projektami Fundacji Wikimedia. Proszę Cię o przeczytanie naszych zasad. Jeżeli chcesz się zając tłumaczeniem stron, odwiedź Meta:Babylon. Możesz również zostawić notkę na stronie Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (proszę jednak, abyś najpierw przeczytał instrukcje na górze tej strony). Jeżeli będziesz potrzebował pomocy zostaw komentarz na mojej stronie dyskusji. Miłego edytowania!

Olá Vapmachado! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, Meta:Metapub, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Ciao Vapmachado, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Здравствуйте, Vapmachado, и добро пожаловать на Мета-вики фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала предлагаю ознакомиться с правилами этого проекта. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами страниц Мета-вики и других материалов, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel или Meta:Metapub (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Tjeta Vapmachado, dhe mirësevin në Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ky vënd i rrjetës është për të koordinuar dhe diskutuar çdo projekt të Wikimediës. Mund ta gjësh të dobishme faqet e politikës sonë. Në qoftë se je duke interesuar në përkthime, vizitò Meta:Babylon. Mund të lësh një shënim në Meta:Babel ose Meta:Metapub (të lutem të lexosh përdorimet në fillim të fletës para se të postosh atje). Në qoftë se do, ndihu i/e lirë të më bsh pyetje në faqen time të diskutimit. Të auguroj një redaktim të këndshëm!

Здраво Vapmachado, и добро дошли на Викимедијин мета-вики! Овај сајт служи за координацију и дискусију око Викимедијиних пројеката. Вероватно ће Вам бити корисно да прочитате наше странице везане за политику рада. Ако сте заинтересовани за превођење, посетите Meta:Babylon. Можете такође и оставити поруку на страници Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (молимо погледајте упутства на врху те странице пре него што пошаљете свој коментар тамо). Ако имате неко питање, можете да ми поставите на мојој страници за разговор. Срећно уређивање!

Hej Vapmachado, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Meta är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om webbplatsen, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan skriva diskussionsinlägg på Meta:Babel eller Meta:Metapub (läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

வணக்கம் Vapmachado, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Xin chào Vapmachado, và hoan nghênh bạn đến với Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Trang web này dành cho việc phối hợp và thảo luận về tất cả các dự án Wikimedia. Có thể sẽ hữu ích nếu bạn xem qua trang quy định của chúng tôi. Nếu bạn cảm thấy thích việc dịch thuật, xin hãy ghé thăm Meta:Babylon. Bạn cũng có thể để lại một lời nhắn tại Meta:Babel hoặc Meta:Metapub (xin hãy đọc hướng dẫn ở đầu trang trước khi viết tại đó). Nếu thích, mời bạn thoải mái đặt câu hỏi tại trang thảo luận của tôi. Chúc bạn có giờ phút hoạt động vui vẻ!

中文(简体)‎: Vapmachado,你好!欢迎光临维基媒体元维基!这个网站是为协调和讨论所有维基媒体项目而设。我们的政策页可能对您有用。如果您有兴趣协助翻译工作,请参观Meta:Babylon。你可在Meta:BabelMeta:Metapub留下口讯(张贴之前请先读该页上指示)。若有问题,请在我的讨论页问我 。祝
编安!

中文(繁體)‎: Vapmachado,你好!歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基!這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作,請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在Meta:BabelMeta:Metapub留下口訊(張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題,請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

Alex Pereira falaê 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This project is not your blog[edit]

Sorry, but it is not. You can't put here your ideas since they don't represent the pt.wikipedia. I will request for a local sysop attention even if you remove the tag. You will not continue your attacks to pt.wikipedia as you did before and was blocked for that. --Teles (talk / pt-wiki talk) -- 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, or you will get blocked here too. Thanks. Diego Grez return fire 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no discussion. Attack pages have to be removed. Pages created for banned contributors with bad faith cannot be accepted anywhere. You will not continue here your disruptive edits that justified your blocks on pt.wiki.--Teles (talk / pt-wiki talk) -- 01:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is being pursued elsewhere [1], [2] and [3], since it is a community and not a personal matter, a matter of personal opinion or even a dialog between cooperative editors.

I strongly object to this section title, so named by an user [4] that only states the obvious, followed by unfounded claims that are unacceptable in a civil dialog.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard[edit]

You have been mentioned here. Tiptoety talk 05:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My message was not false[edit]

Vapmachado, thanks, but the information would not be necessary since you are everywere. Nice way of not answering my comment with diffs. Did I say anything incorrect? Isn't the blog on the blacklist? There was any discussion where it concludes that the blog could be used? Didn't you called a steward a "false prophet"? I didn't invented those diffs.

That's a huge "coincidence". Exactly at the moment when we discuss on pt.wiki the removal of the blog you put it here and... at the top of the list. As I explained here, the content of the blog included material that is not allowed anywhere, in any project...including here.
I won't waste my time with your request/attack since there's no meaning on it. I've already seen how much you can be "educated" on pt.wiki and I would not like to see it again.--Teles (talk / pt-wiki talk) -- 02:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks and comments[edit]

Yes, Meta is a very interesting place. But, well, to use the edit summary is always a good habit; and the different usage of talks is not a big issue, you can do what you want, e.g. I reply here as I do on other projecs (but you have to keep others' talk pages in your watchlist). On the university: I'm a students' representative. I don't think that this is very relevant to Wikimedia, and my user page is already way too long and full with uninteresting infos for my taste. :-) --Nemo 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Thogo[edit]

The thread was already closed as "not done", please stop re-adding the information that was moved to the RfC talkpage. Kylu 01:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm overjoyed that you're using the diff template now, I can't help but think that your variation of "civility, cordiality, education, and respect" is rather different from that of others here.
Please bear in mind that, typically, when a new user goes to visit a new project (such as if I were to visit pt.wikipedia for actual editing work), the user spends a bit of time getting to know the traditions and policies that go into that project. While on Meta we're a fairly convivial group with widely varying backgrounds, there are some very minimal standards that we tend to hold dear, much as the other multitude of Wikimedia Foundation projects do.
Your flagrant disregard for our norms is, for the most part, ignored by the locals in hopes of amicable solutions. We're hardly averse to criticism, especially when it's constructive and helpful, but I can't help but wonder if, just maybe that after you pop up here and immediately start to demand changes and deride others that have been peacefully working for ages, after you've already been blocked on three other projects, perhaps it's not actually us that's the issue here?
Our cordiality is limited by our desire to attempt some useful work, so your persistent attempts at modifying global policies without even a consideration of the consensus of those it would affect are hardly going to be welcomed. While the experience of the readership is our primary focus, we simply aren't going to change our mission and require volunteers to identify themselves in order to hold positions of trust on the projects. Wikipedia started out as an "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and we've expanded from there, even if we've had to make restrictions on people who have abused our trust and, ultimately, we've had to block them for such.
Regarding your desire to educate us: Your position here has, frankly, been filled with complaints and diff sarcasm (as oft noted in English, the lowest form of wit), and I will have to admit that my education must be lacking, for I don't see how your industrial engineering Ph.D in any way entitles you to such written tirades as we've been made to suffer. We have a number of well-educated people on both sides of nearly any debate that has arisen, and frankly you're one of many that has come and gone on these projects.
Respect here tends to be earned with hard work, determination, and a sane judgment of consensus. Again, I suspect that your heart is in the right place in wanting to help the projects, but frankly, you're taking the entirely wrong course in doing so. I doubt that you've been blocked thrice because the administrators on those three projects dislike your mustache.
Keep personal information off Meta. No real names, no emails or similar information is to be posted by you unless you've personally gotten permission to do so, and I don't refer to the site license. This, I'm afraid, is not a request. Consider it a rude demand if you'd like, but as you've been warned once, there's hardly a reason to need to issue a second such warning.
Finally, please stop writing sections like they're letters with solid blocks of text and a valediction at the end. We'd appreciate it if you would write your statement, stick four tildes (~~~~) at the end so we know who wrote the edit, and then stop. I wonder if the writing style itself might have been enough to drive some of the administrators you've run into to clicking the block button a bit early: That's one of those norms that I mentioned which you seem to be intent on ignoring.
I'll plainly warn you: If you continue in the same manner in which you have been behaving here into the future, expect that eventually you're going to wear out the welcome that's becoming a bit threadbare at the moment, and find that you will be unable to edit. I have no plans on performing such a block myself, but without any change it's a near certainty that someone will.
Preferably, think about what I've noted and re-read your reply before posting your next reply. If you get the impression that patience here is wearing somewhat thin for you, you'd be entirely correct. We try to be friendly, but don't mistake that for being a doormat for you to trample upon. I hope your day goes better. Kylu 03:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement made above that I have an "industrial engineering Ph.D" is FALSE. Enjoy. Vapmachado 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, mea culpa. Thanks for fixing your signature, by the way. Kylu 20:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit sad you only answered on a detail rather than on the main subject of her message, tho. Proving a single point wrong doesn't mean the rest is, too. DarkoNeko 22:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You have conquered another namespace. Congrats. --TeleS (T PT @ C G) 22:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

moved from Wikimedia Forum. -AlexSm 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

The statement diff that I have an "industrial engineering Ph.D" is FALSE. Y'all have fun, you hear? Vapmachado 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But when you could stop to add your diffs on places where it doesn't belong it yould be nicer to read them. Regards, -jkb- 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread your userpage, y'all. :) Kylu 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
jkb, Sorry. I don't get it. Don't know if anybody else does. Would you like to use my talk page to explain yourself a little better? You're most welcome. Take care. Vapmachado 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Vapmachado. This site (meta) has been created for the coordination of the work of the different projects (some more then 700, I guess). Therefore I have some pages on my watch list here. But in the last time I still have to look on some reports, thoughts etc. where you do not coordinate but where you try to solve some other problems. Your statement above might be of an importance for you or for somebody else, but I am unhappy to say it, it was not necessary to post it here, on Wikimedia Forum. Thanks and regards. -jkb- 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects." (top of this page) --TeleS (T PT @ C G) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but where is the concrete connection between "industrial engineering Ph.D of Vapmachado is FALSE" and "The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects" ? -jkb- 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
None. That's what I said (or what I tried to say).--TeleS (T PT @ C G) 21:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry.I misunderstood your edit - ok? -jkb- 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think...hope... I'm misunderstanding the meaning of diff, personally. For some reason I seem to think it's a politely worded "stfu". Kylu 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure it's ok, jkb. Don't worry.--TeleS (T PT @ C G) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Closing thread, since the author seems to be acknowledging that it isn't relevant to the page. Kylu 03:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-wiki attack[edit]

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.

  • The text above explain why did i revert one of your edits in your subpage. Please, don't insert this kind of links on this project. Those who make the links are also responsible for its content.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 22:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

time stamps[edit]

Hi. Do you have any special reason to add time stamps like here or here? When I read the page these time stamps are quite irritating and absolutely not useful. Regards -jkb- 11:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You are blocked for 3 months for your behavior here. --WizardOfOz talk 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"You can email WizardOfOz or another administrator (list) to contest the block"? Show me it is true. Vapmachado 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It is just a software message. You can´t. But you can request a unblock here on your talk page with this template. Another admin will decide. --WizardOfOz talk 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "It is just a software message"? If it isn't true, it's a lie.
You mean to tell me that I can request an unblock and one of your friends can confirm the block and that's it? Are you able to write that with a straight face without bursting into uncontrollable laughter? Vapmachado 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Take care about your words, thats why you are blocked. You can´t send a mail. The only way is explained above. But if you don´t want to use it, there is a log out button in the top right corner. --WizardOfOz talk 22:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The system message that you're quoting from actually contains a bit more information, part of which concerns this issue: diff
(Note:Excerpt)"You can email $4 or another administrator (list) to contest the block. You cannot use the email this user feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences, has been confirmed, and you are not disallowed from using it while blocked." - Note that this is quoting from the system-generated message, so the $4 is replaced with the name of the blocking admin when it's displayed to a blocked user. Now, the message in Portuguese, if that's the message you saw, still contains the old (outdated) information, but you used quotes, so this implies you read the English message instead, otherwise you would be quoting to us in Portuguese. I assume that this is merely an oversight on your part and not actually a "lie of omission" diff as has been accused of some contributors by others recently. Your block, as set, disallows you from sending emails, hence the complete version of the English message you quote from is quite accurate.
Please explain which of the two issues is yours, and if you'd like to translate the English (accurate) version into Portuguese or other languages, feel free to leave the translated text here where we can copy it to the system messages after verification.
I do hope that clears up the matter of the incorrect text. At the time it was written in Portuguese, it appears that there was certainly no lie intended, so I tend to think of this as merely a problem of outdated translations, rather than intended as falsehood. We all make mistakes, right?
Have an otherwise pleasant day. Kylu 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Will I get unblocked if I answer you this time and do all that you're asking? It's a fair deal, isn't it? Vapmachado 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
While you ponder my proposal, let me make a brief statement and put a couple of questions to all of you. When I decided to make my review I also made a serious commitment not to write anything that would give anybody an excuse to block me. It is not an easy task and I might have failed somewhere, unless you surprise everybody with something like "all you wrote is unacceptable." That would be very strange indeed, since there's probably more quotations than text that can be attributed to me. What prevents you from listing everything that I wrote that is considered "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: insulting, degrading and offensive"? If you don't spell it out no one will ever know, including myself. Do you all consider that a desirable light shining on your work here on Meta? Vapmachado 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave Wiz a note asking him to explain which statements he finds objectionable and why for you. For the "will I get unblocked" question, I'd have to say no: It has nothing to do with unblocking or not. People edit on Wikimedia ostensibly to volunteer their time improving the place. If you didn't want to improve the place, then blocking wouldn't be of any detriment to you. This simply allows you an opportunity to continue to improve Meta while you're unable to directly edit. If you don't care to perform the edit, that's fine, but be aware that the error I mentioned will simply tend to continue without correction, as nobody fluent in the language has yet to do so. For those folks who come here and aren't looking to constructively contribute by volunteering their time and effort... well, we don't want people who only edit to our detriment, right? Kylu 01:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Teles, please grow up and get a proper education. You might still be able to join the community of civilized persons. That is, however, very doubtful as you're probably convinced that you already belong there and are not lacking in any respect.

Those of you who still don't know me well please be advised never forget what User:Teles has certainly forgotten: the user that can offend or intimidate me has not been born yet.

    • please grow up and get a proper education = degrading,
    • You might still be able to join the community of civilized persons = insulting
    • whole text = offensive
    • whole text = personal attack
  • The 4th pillar of Wikipedia, was a reason to block you per infinite, I´ve done it just for 3 months. Your whole behavior and your edits are making me sure that you are just for two reasons on meta: the first is to transfer pt. problems to the meta community, and second is trolling. I hope it was clear enough, the way you can request a unblock is explained above. The next try of trolling will end in an infinite block. --WizardOfOz talk 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Am I allowed to respond? Vapmachado 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure if you can do it without prologue. --WizardOfOz talk 18:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The system message has nothing to do with your block. It is just a bad translated part of the software as Kylu wrote above. Your talk page access is open just to give you possibility to request unblock. If you don´t want to do so, it is your problem. Matters about system can be discussed after your block expire. Therefore, we have other talk pages. Once more: hold it short, and don´t troll, or your talk page access will also be blocked. --WizardOfOz talk 06:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Thank you so very much Kylu for asking.diff Thank you WizardOfOz for answering.diff diff Thank you for allowing me to respond.diff

Of all the people in the world, it's my children whom I love the most. I wish they grow up and get a proper education so that one day they might be able to join the community of civilized persons. Not everybody in the world is that fortunate. My children know that. Just like I have known, and my parents, grand parents and my ancestors for generations before me have known.

Nobody can offend or intimidate me, for the same reason that I will not be happy for the rest of my life, just because someone tells me so. Nobody has that much power.

See you all around somewhere,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


×
Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had his or her unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: Misguided block (1). Ironclad, unshakable, and irrefutable full explanation given (2) for misunderstood "constructive feedback on areas for improvement", "consideration of the user conduct [...] number and types of edits" "and every user deserves at least a few positive words or some constructive criticism." (3) Uncontested review (posted for almost three weeks) and uncontested acceptance of explanation given (posted for nine days) (2). Vapmachado 23:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason: Request refers to an old block that already expired. Barras 09:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

English | español | français | magyar | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

(1) Block and Block: explanation; (2) Block: Responding; (3) Request for review of User:Teles and Wikipedia:Editor review


WizardOfOz blocked Vapmachado from 21:25, 23 September 2010 to 21:25, 23 December 2010; the reason given was: Intimidating behaviour/harassment: insulting, degrading, offensive [5]

Your current IP address is 193.136.124.200 and the block ID is #14551.


Is this Meta? I mean the Meta whose current purpose is:

  1. Discussion and formulation of the Wikimedia projects, and in particular policy discussion relevant to all projects, such as open content licensing
  2. A forum for personal essays about the Wikimedia projects (as these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they should be summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple point of view using formats like TIPAESA or its subset IPA)
  3. A place to discuss interlanguage co-ordination issues concerning the Wikimedia projects, including discussion in languages other than English

Does Meta "currently serves as one of the major avenues of discussion for Wikimedians"?

Thank you so much for answering the above questions so clearly and undeniably.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Principles and your email request.[edit]

  • You're correct, I did not reply to the first message, though I received it. No reply seemed necessary.
  • The content of the page you were wondering about has been mirrored at User:Vapmachado/SOP, its history at User talk:Vapmachado/SOP.
  • While you won't be able to import the page at Meta (as you don't have import or sysop rights here), you can export the pages you're interested in here and import them to another project if you have the appropriate rights:
    1. Visit special:export
    2. In the large box, type "Statement of Principles" and, on a new line "Statement of Principles/list"
    3. Deselect "Include only the current revision, not the full history"
    4. Click "Export"
  • You may also be able to create a PDF via special:book, though honestly this is not functionality I have used, myself.
  • If you're already familiar with both of the prior options, please feel free to ignore them. I really can't recall who is familiar with how much of how MediaWiki works: Better to provide too much information than not enough, right?

To answer the last question you posed: No, getting emails from blocked users doesn't particularly bother me, though I don't typically respond via email in return. If I reply, it'll be on your talkpage instead. Chalk it up to eccentricity if you'd like.

Have a nice day. :) Kylu 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated request for assistance[edit]

To all women and men of good faith who are members of th[e [Foundation-l]] mailing list, please check the following pages:

1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds

2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds

3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Vapmachado_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_ban_request

4) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block

5) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AVapmachado&type=block

6) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

and any further information on the user page:

7) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado

Please let me know:

a) why my request for unblock was never answered,

b) where on page (2) are the occurrences of "harassment,"

c) if after Dec. 23, "he's just returned to do the same thing that lead him to be blocked in the first instance.",

d) where are the occurrences of "continued hostile behavior,"

e) towards what or whom is that "continued hostile behavior,"

f) why my "interesting history" of "cross-wiki" pioneering achievements is never mentioned, a clear violation of a NPOV in decision making.

The accusations of "meatpuppetry and privacy violations"diff and diff based on highly controverted and irregular cases, may still turn out to be defamatory, and it is not very wise to use them to attack the reputation, honor and good name of this user.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)




It was certainly not a good idea.

Removing the uncalled for and uncivil comments on the votediff, diff, diff, diff, diff, and diff would make the entries on the talk page irrelevant, and, therefore also eligible for removal. Is that such an unreasonable, far fetched and foreign way of handling misunderstandings?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)




Many thanks to all women and men of good faith who are members of the Foundation-l mailing list and/or Meta editors. I was literally swamped with answers to my questions and advice. Such outpouring of good will and fellowship makes it practically impossible for me to thank each and everyone individually. Therefore, I'm writing these few lines to express my deepest gratitude to all that came forward to help.

I would like to express my deepest sympathies to all the others that turned away from a request for assistance. I have personal experience of the consequences of that unfortunate and sometimes inhuman behavior. The dire result of such callousness has been documented many times. On You Tube one can see, among many other examples, the video "Man dies on New York street: Nobody stopped to help him". Let's all pray and/or hope that those who shied away from helping, will not live to regret it. Imagine them requesting assistance for the person they most love at that moment and not getting any. Imagine them watching their most loved one die from lack of assistance. Imagine them recalling that occasion, probably among many others, when they refused to help, thinking it would never happen to them or that it was in their own best self interest not to get involved. I wish that will never happen, but I fear for them, and hope they'll never find themselves in such a predicament.

I understand and have been specifically told, or warned if you prefer, that this "talk page access is open just to give [me the] possibility to request unblock." I have been attacked, abused, and threatened on this very same page. "Take care about your words", "there is a log out button in the top right corner."diff "The 4th pillar of Wikipedia, was a reason to block you per infinite" (no evidence was provided), "Your whole behavior and your edits are making me sure that you are just for two reasons on meta: the first is to transfer pt. problems to the meta community, and second is trolling." (personal POV without any evidence), "The next try of trolling will end in an infinite block."diff "you can do it (respond) without prologue."diff and to "hold it short, and don´t troll, or your talk page access will also be blocked."diff All this from someone who having felt embarrassed by a quote of some material from Meta itselfdiff, and unable to control his anger, went on a rampage of outlandish behavior #Block in a futile attempt to assert his power and authority, and save face, with the complacency and complicity of like minded sycophants.

I understand that some people here on Meta have certain powers. That they will not hesitate to use them. That most likely they are always looking forward to have an excuse to use them. "Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding." My understanding, however, is not so limited. I do have human rights like everybody else. One of those rights (Article 11) entitles any human being to "all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Everything that I have written and will write in this statement is set forth under those inalienable rights.

Let's go back to that first block on Meta, referred above. After the discussion and all the provocations also mentioned, a request to unblock was duly posted on this pagediff. It turned out to be a futile exercise. It was let to linger here for more than two months, leading to the only plausible explanation that, for the fourth time, the objective is to block the user at all costs, no matter what the reason or its merits. For motives, you'll have to ask those involved. There are people specially trained that could help sort those kind of things. This user does not have the required qualifications.

Let's put the other three bans in the proper perspective. brwikimedia and ptwikimedia are the wikis of the Brazilian and Portuguese chapters, that, like the Portuguese Wikipedia are run by the same people. That's the only reason for "being blocked or banned across multiple wikis." Please note that according to a recent news item there's about 30 Portuguese active editors (Population: about 10 million).

The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people mentioned above. The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the same people from the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with that people, not this user.

One thing is certain. The accumulation of blocks builds up an "interesting history of cross-wiki issues"diff that can be used at will, while omitting an outstanding "interesting history" of "cross-wiki" pioneering achievements, a clear violation of a NPOV in decision making, a gross personal attack, and a sorry display of blatant bad faith.

It is risible that after having failed to handle a request to unblock in a reasonable and timely fashion, so much zeal was taken in declining the unblock requestdiff "that already expired."diff Someone must be delusioning himself and deceiving others, thinking that closing the request when it was no longer relevant will instantly turn all wrongs into rights, just like magic.

Several things have been written here on Meta, in pages where I'm prevented from editing. The fact that those statements were not made or quoted in this talk page does not bode well for those user's good faith.

Let's start with the RfA where this user had the audacity to cast the only visible dissenting vote. From there one may look at his comments on that [talk page]. At this point, please bear in mind that those two comments were the immediate pretext for a request for his"inmediate & indef block" (sic) allegedly for "harassment", "continued hostile behavior", and "no intentions of amendment."

Now lets look at the events that unfolded on the RfA after him being blocked.

There is an occurrence of this statement "I may think Vapmachado is wrong about just about everything and has little to no idea how Wikimedia works at all."diff The author may think what he wants, but he went a lot further when he wrote about it without any evidence to support the quoted statement. Therefore, it can only be taken for what it is: a convenient lie and a gratuitous attempt to smear the reputation of this user.

Next is a note that "this RfA was canvassed in foundation-l."diff followed by three comments. One editor argues that the RfA was "firstly mentioned their by the only opposer"diff as if it really matters who is on first and what's his vote. Then it is argued that it's not the nominee's "fault that people "discuss" this RfA there" a strange way to vouch for any election. As long as the candidate himself is not personally involved in any violation, the election is free and fair? The next editor doesn't get it much better. The RfA was not canvassed but "anti-canvassed"diff. Then, the author of the "anti-canvassing" is thanked "for having drawn my attention to [the RfA]." Conclusion: "drawing attention to an election" is not canvassing. That much was acknowledge in the third, and last comment. "I thank Vapmachado for having drawn my attention to it."diff, while voting in the same breath. There's also a misleading "I don't think it appropriate to raise a meta RFA on foundation-l," contradicted by "Vapmachado didn't suggest anything: just posting some URLs including this page."

So the question remains. There was "canvassing," "anti-canvassing," or a post with "some URLs including this page." (the RfA)? As far as this user is concerned the fact that a link to a RfA and its talk page was included was purely circumstantial. What was posted was a request for assistance. It was on account of posts made on an RfA and its talk page that the user was asking for whatever assistance was deemed appropriate and capable of being provided. The RfA was never an issue and he could care less how others voted.

That was not the case for three other users [6], [7], [8], who raised this comment: "I'm not sure it's a good idea for others to post their support for Peter's admin nomination - merely on the basis of assuming that any given style of posting will be duplicated until it's a bad idea"[9]. There was indeed some canvassing made by three different users, not this one.

It is on the post just mentioned above that there is another occurrence of a statement similar to the one already quoted: "I do think you have no understanding whatsoever of how Wikimedia works, in detail or broad overview."[10]

From then on, the election goes into a tailspin. The details can be found on the RfA and its history. It would be fastidious to go into the details. Suffice it to say that, as already mentioned, the two comments on that RfA talk page were the immediate pretext for a request for an "inmediate & indef block" allegedly for "harassment", "continued hostile behavior", and "no intentions of amendment."

It is obvious, from reading those two comments,diff and diff that the accusations of "harassment" and "continued hostile behavior" are delusional. Please note that neither the accusing editor or anybody else have provided any evidence on which those accusations and block is based, providing answers to the six items listed a) through f), posted on this page since Jan. 5, but that they were aware much earlier, by the accuser's own post on the ban request.diff

As for intentions, you may look for them in hell, mostly of those that think it is great fun to make a mockery of a request for assistance, have an unruly, derogatory and outright abusive behavior on the Foundation-l mailing list, and have made a sport of attacking the reputation, honor and good name of this user. This user's good deeds on Wikimedia projects can be found a lot easier, but that's an inconvenient truth.

Discussion of what happened on the RfA is not complete until a look is taken at the RfA talk page. There, it can be found the third occurrence of this kind of statement: "I do think you're wrong about almost everything and have no working understanding whatsoever of Wikimedia or any of the projects."diff This insistence in stating what that user thinks and his "belief" can only be viewed as uncivil and a dissemination of mistrust. One must not forget that the author has recently made an unsavory post about the user[11] that does not vouch for the good intentions or good faith, for all that matters, of "a native speaker of BS."

With the assurance that attacking this user as a "troll" was safe and would go unpunished,diff, diff, diff, and diff and his complaints about those attacks,diff among other things, had only resulted in the user being "inmediate & indef" blocked, there were great incentives to continue to call him a "troll," no matter how obnoxious the arguments.

"His persistence," a quality recognized by Horace, Benjamin Franklin, Calvin Coolidge, Alfred Adler, Eric Hoffer, James Whitcomb Riley, Thomas Carlyle, Napoleon Hill, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Abdul Kalam, Thomas A. Buckner, Arthur C. Clarke, Richard M. DeVos, Maya Angelou, in Japanese proverbs and those in many other languages, "makes him a persistent troll."diff and diff This is followed by a very detailed explanation of why "the term "troll" applies to his quite clearly in this case; he came to this RfA, opposed without a reason [...]" I beg you pardon, "opposed without a reason?" Sure it doesn't mean that a button was hit by accident? Good. Was it that "Strongly oppose" was written involuntarily? No? Good. Does it mean that no justification was written? Yes? Great. The correct phrase is "without justification," an undeniable fact and voluntary act. Wait, it gets better. "He came to this RfA, opposed without a reason with the sole intention of getting a reaction." Wow! That is quite remarkable. Here is someone who is capable of knowing with absolute certainty the intentions of others, just from reading two words in a RfA. How many of the readers think that this genius is not even aware of the ridicule he his exposing himself? Let's take the genius back. It certainly it's not his fault that he feels entitled to blurt "He then wasted his time and everyone else's by writing walls of text here." Not good, by a long shot. "The application of AGF [assume good faith] should never disrupt the wiki, as it was doing here." Here? Where exactly is "here", and what was the "disruption"? To vote "Strongly oppose"? Would just "oppose" have been less disruptive? Is it "writing walls of text" that "disrupt[s] the wiki? What will be this comment? An himalaya of text? My dear confused, this is not Twitter. If it was, it would not be a wiki, everybody's name would start with "@", the length of the messages would be limited to 140 characters, and we would all have been spared of this awful embarrassment. "That user was here solely to argue and get reactions of out people." Quite amazing indeed. "That is a troll." Sorry, wrong again. It must be a painful exercise to read more than one line of text. One way around that is to read a single line per day. Get over to this wonderful essay and when ready let us all know who is or are the trolls "here." "He has been dealt with as one" will be mercifully also found wrong, once the appropriate section is reached in the essay mentioned. "Can we please move away from this discussion?" Wonderful question. Was someone or something holding you there? Most likely not. You lead. Finally, "This isn't what an RfA's talk page was meant for." "This" is exactly what? "An RfA's talk page [i]s meant" for what? Citation needed!

The above, very long paragraph is proportional to the absurdity of the commentary, and was written a bit in jest. It's difficult to write seriously about so much silliness. However, an important remark must be made. The comment might have been written by a really mean spirited creature, who by now is probably foaming at the mouth. Tough. It might have been written by a well intentioned soul, whose knowledge limitations prevent him for doing much better. This is just one more learning experience. Try a more kind approach, and you'll be taught much more and more gently. The most worrying cases are that this was written by a minor or a person with some sort of learning disability or low IQ. If that is the case, I must apologize, and would rather withdraw both of these two paragraphs and will make no comment whatsoever to those posts even if they are left to linger there, something someone should be paying attention to.

The ban request was made and done in three minutes. There must have been a clear and present danger to the whole Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. It was faced with an imminent threat, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. It justified taking a preemptive self-defense ban against this user of mass destruction.

Notice the difference in response time: request to unblockdiff ignored for almost three months, until after block expired;diff ban requestdiff done in three minutes.[12]

After it was requested and done, there is a brief but interesting and revealing dialog. The accuser posts a link to a Foundation-l thread, commenting "as expected."diff He reacts to that thread, "as the user has complained that what I quoted from his blocklog on ptwiki may turn out for being difamatory I have removed it from this thread & I excuse. It was probably not a good idea." On the next line, he writes that "I'm not suscribed to foundation-l."diff If, faced with this sequence of events, you come to the conclusion that the accuser was not acting alone, and was being used as a front, a pawn by somebody else, that's your conclusion, not mine. If you believe that the reason why it took only three minutes to ban this user was because it was pre-arranged outside the wiki, before the request, it's your belief, not mine. If you think that these two other interventions: one commentdiff and a request to unblock denied after it "already expired"diff, both done by a third individual, were not a coincidence, because everything happens for a reason, you're very close to my own thinking, because I might agree with you.

Another coincidence comes to mind. On Christmas Eve, a request to undelete was posted on the Stewards' noticeboard. diff No action was taken for a week. On New Year's Eve some background was posted for the request.diff On King's Day, another post was planned to be added to the request to undelete. It would have the heading "History" and would tell the sequence of events that led to that abusive oversight. It was not meant to happen. A block "with an expiry time of infinite" was made on Jan. 5, but the conviction remains that the oversight was not made solely on a single page, but included several comments made on this user's talk page on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those comments might have been a bit compromising, so they were doomed in order to leave no traces of the misdeed, except to the few who have access to them. For the rest of us, common mortals, the only way to find out, is from a positive response to the request to undelete. That of course would be a terrible blow to the principle of infallibility of the anointed ones, with unpredictable (or perhaps not) consequences. The last twist on that "fait divers" was it's manual archive, even before two weeks of the last post,diff by the same kindhearted soul that so gallantly did the block for three months.diff

Blocks "with an expiry time of infinite" have always looked mind boggling. They have also been subject to some great jokes. One must remember that there are four of those![13] Infinity is an awful long time. I don't expect to live that long. I hope that none of bright people that have blocked, and they are just right next to true geniuses, expect to live that long. How can someone explain that attachment to "infinity"? No one can come up with a better word? Ridiculous, isn't it?

Having experienced some weird actions (a.k.a. vandalism), being taken on my user page on the Portuguese Wikipedia by two very good friends, which have been discussed already here om Meta,diff, diff, diff and diff I'm looking forward to see the future of this Meta user page. It has been a real privilege to be the only blocked user (or to be one of them, if I'm wrong) to have the user page vandalized and live to see it let standing there in that sorry state, as a witness to the hate and rage of a Wikimedia project administrators. What fine gentlemen they are.

Without bothering anyone with the importance of dialog, particularly on a wiki where no regular page comes without a talk or discussion page, it is in plain view for everybody to see that dialog is certainly not the cup of tea of the editors who have graced this narrative. There was a call for dialog, here on Meta, on Jan. 5diff and another on Foundation-l, on Jan. 6. [14] There was no response to a suggestion to make the whole matter irrelevant. The users involved did not shown any willingness and openness to dialog, and accommodation. However, the accusation was changed, using a privilege that is denied to the user. Given the choice of erasing the strongly oppose vote and his comments on the talk page or being blocked, would the user have any hesitation in choosing the first option? Was a support vote what was so desired? Was unanimity in the voting what was really at stake? If the editor wanted to be administrator that badly, even under those appalling circumstances, and there has not been a single beep as to how he feels about all this "Much Ado About Nothing," what was the problem of extorting one more vote under the threat of an "inmediate & indef block"? The user would have given the "nominee" a thousand votes if he could and if that was what would make everybody happy, get some characters off his back, and let him contribute the best way he can and knows. But that was not in the cards that were being dealt. The above mentioned behavior makes it very hard to make certain users' good faith believable.

Just a cursory reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[15] is enough to realize that people here have the utmost contempt for them. Besides the article already mentioned above, there's no "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family [as] the foundation of freedom, justice and peace," there is "disregard and contempt for human rights [...] result[ing] in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief [as] freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people," that "it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law." There are gross violations of Articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 29 and 30 (out of 30): "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein," just in case you were inclined to think that these rights do not apply here, to you or this user. He is, in case you forgot, a human being. What are you?

On more than one occasion there has been a chance to draw from one's education and upbringing, and base both one's writings and actions on those. There has been either no reaction or the response has been negative, a rejection of many things held dear. Very recently there was an opportunity to watch "Smile or Die" on YouTube, and it struck as what might be a reasonable description of the underlying and prevalent behavior on Meta and other Wikimedia projects, that one has been unfortunate to get involved with.

Therefore, there was a search somewhere else for principles that, despite some good intentions and well meaning cranks like oneself, might better describe what actually goes on in Wikimedia projects. Consider these:[16]

  1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
  2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
  3. When in another wiki, show respect or else do not go there.
  4. If a user in your wiki annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
  5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
  6. Do not edit that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
  7. Acknowledge the power of administrators and stewards if you have relied on them successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of administrators and stewards having called upon them with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
  8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
  9. Do not harm little children.
  10. Do not destroy bots unless you are attacked or for your editing.
  11. When editing, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Now tell me: what could possibly go wrong if you behave as prescribed above and follow those commandments? Wouldn't you be a true wikimedian?

If there are any questions, please feel free to ask, but remember to do your share in providing some answers to the many questions asked above.

On Jan. 5, the accuser produced this perplexing statement: "If the user wants to appeal his ban it is his talk page the proper venue I think."diff Why perplexing? Because the author is a Meta administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser and steward. That's as close to being a god or demigod as it gets around these parts. So how come he mentions an "appeal" instead of a "request"? Does he think they are the same thing, i.e. synonyms? Nor even in the Wikitionary he would have such luck. Then he "thinks" that the talk page is the proper venue? What? Almost a demigod and he "thinks"? Isn't he supposed to know these things, to be infallible? Well, despite this disappointment, there's no need to deprive the owners of this wiki of another chance to show off their superpowers and superiority. At the end you will find the best unblock request a simple human being can produce.

Before closing, there's a secret you all must know: these wikis are not really yours. They are ours. You have only accepted to do some tasks voluntarily for our benefit, not yours. When you fail to properly discharge your duties, you can no longer be trusted and you become expendable. For further advice, read about Cuddles.[17] The Night of the Long Knives is also very entertaining.

Wutsje blocked Vapmachado with an expiry time of infinite (per [18])

"Your current IP address is 68.201.42.143 and the block ID is #15438."

Comment - Just a tip; when you are requesting to be unblocked, it is not usually good practice to not only insult those who blocked you, but also to continue what you were doing on that RfA talk page amounts other places - writing paragraphs upon paragraphs in which you manipulate what people say and do for no other reason to cause an argument. That is trolling, and that is not acceptable here. That being said, it is possible to not like how a system works and want to change it. However, there is a certain way of approaching a situation like that - and being insulting, baiting other users into responding and constant manipulation of people and policies is not the way to do it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to add that afaic this unblock request (which I will not handle myself for obvious reasons) once more proves that blocking this user was both justified and necessary. It is hard to see how a stream of insults and provocations like the above (The Night of the Long Knives? huh?) could have any other purposes than downright trolling and the disruption of another Wikimedia project. This user's intentions are quite clear and they are not constructive at all. Wutsje 01:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: at least on Portuguese Wikibooks, the contributions made by Vapmachado, as well as his comments on local discussions are very constructive to the project. Helder 14:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment these wikis are not really yours. They are ours. You have only accepted to do some tasks voluntarily for our benefit, not yours. Doing volunteer job is NOT Carte blanche to be insulted. You are not allowed to insult many people who wholeheartedly are working for benefit of OURS Mardetanha talk 02:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


×
Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had his or her unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: Block based on a slanderous request, with no evidence of "harassment" and "continued hostile behavior" provided, after posting a request for such information, ten days ago.
Decline reason: Reviewing this I see no benefit to Meta in allowing this user to continue to behave in the way they have. If there is any further abusive editing of this talk page it should be protected and, I think, it should be blanked other than with a block statement fairly soon. Herby talk thyme 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

English | español | français | magyar | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit