User talk:BD2412

Status: Back for the weekend. bd2412 T ^(e)

/Archive 1 (April 2006 - December 2008)

[edit] Email inbound

Just sent you an email. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfB thankspam!

Just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support of my RfB, which just closed with unanimous support. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have every confidence in you for the job. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kindness quote

Hi BD2412, I was just cruising for quotes for our church's weekly "Thought for the week" and I used the MacDuff one you posted, and linked it with Proverbs 15:1. But I noticed that the Littleton one right before it - also posted by you - seems a bit odd. Can you check to see if you made a typo? It currently says, "And if you ask what is the temper which is most fitted to be victorious over sin on earth, I answer that in it the warp of a sunny gentleness must be woven across the woof of a strong character." The words "warp" and "woof" both seem strange - can you check these against the original source? Thanks, Walkerma 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For this use of these terms see Weaving, once a homecraft familiar to all, but now mostly relegated to factories. ~ Ningauble 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it's old fashioned language, but "warp and woof" is a correct expression. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aeschylus

I was just paroling the recent changes for vandalism, and noticed you'd added quotes from Bartlett's to the Aeschylus article. I must have made a mistake then, as I had just recently moved Aeschylus out of the category requiring completion at the Bartlett's project page. I had referred to my (personal) copy of Bartlett's and added the particular quotes that were missing, and I guess I (incorrectly) assumed the different editions were just reprintings with, for the most part, the same quotes — So I thought I had appropriately completed the importing from Aeschylus. It appears there were more which I neglected to add before I moved the entry to "complete," I apologize. Next time I'll make sure to check the exact source! Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 07:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bartlett's edition that we are using for this project is the 1910 edition (which, of course, happens to be in the public domain), linked on that project page. I'll import all the quotes to Wikiquote project space in the next few days, so we won't have to jump to external sources to find them. Cheers! BD2412 T 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the endorsement of my block. :) Cirt (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks can be tough, and controversial (probably more so here then on Wikipedia, where they are far more common). Hopefully my review precludes such controversy! BD2412 T 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so. On another note, are you on OTRS? Cirt (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Should I be? By the way, User:TheVidiot sent me a rather lengthy email protesting his block. For transparency's sake, I'm inclined to repost it to his talk page. Since he addresses your actions, you may wish to respond to his points. BD2412 T 19:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is okay with you, I will just respectfully defer to your admin review. :) Cirt (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to believe that improper conduct can be redeemed. I would have started with a shorter block (maybe 48 yours), and would have given a warning for the first evasion, since it was not an attempt to edit the article which led to the block. I would recommend you reconsider the indefinite block after the week has run. BD2412 T 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, after a week, it could be proposed to him to lift the block, to be replaced by a topic ban? Cirt (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be an entirely reasonable resolution. BD2412 T 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Whoa, had you noticed this comment??? [1]. In his recent unblock requests, his excuse is he claims he was unaware of his violating by usage of sockpuppet, but this comment acknowledging he is aware of this is from December 2008! Cirt (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, after further review of his posts using the sock, I must point out that his posts with the sock about the account TheVidiot referred to it in the third person. [2] [3] - showing he willfully intended for this to be interpreted as a different individual. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the earlier comment - still, some people don't consider an IP edit to be a sockpuppet, since it's not an actual account. Those comments certainly do strengthen the case for a longer block. BD2412 T 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In my own defense:

1. Yes Cirt, I would have liked an explanation from you about why I was blocked. Having another admin say, “I endorse this block” does not provide any information about why YOU blocked me in the first place.

2. About sockpuppets, my previous comment acknowledges that I know what they are; my “excuse” was that I didn’t realize that use of a sockpuppet would result in a lifetime ban with no warning.

2a. Yes, I did refer to myself in the third person. I think it was pretty clear who I was, without explicitly saying, “Look, it’s me! I’m posting anonymously!” I was trying to get an answer to my question, not trying to make a big deal about dodging the block.

2b. And yes, I think there is a big difference between posting anonymously, and having a second account which you use for sockpuppetry.

2c. And in fact, when looking at the sockpuppet guidelines, it says that the puppet account should be blocked indefinitely, NOT the original account.

3. After asking for an explanation so many times, it would have been nice to know that a revocation of the block was at least being considered. The only time I heard about it was after I had already tried to ask anonymously, and it was only in the context of, “We were going to unblock him, but then he kept asking to be unblocked….” The Vidiot 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. BD2412 T 23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Review

As you were kind enough to take on the review of another block, could you look at this one [4] - and perhaps comment in that same subsection at the user talk page on it? Cirt (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid creating the appearance that you and I have an arrangement to that effect. There is no requirement for blocks to be reviewed at all, but any admin can review any other admin's block. BD2412 T 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did post about it to WQ:AN, with a request for other admins to review. I suppose if you disagreed you would feel free to say so. :) Cirt (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

True. BD2412 T 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters update

Hey, regarding Wikiquote_talk:Fictional_characters#Notability_exception, I just wanted to stop by and say that I agree with the changes you made there [5]. There hasn't been any comment at that page in about a month - you think we can mark that issue as resolved? :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! BD2412 T 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I posted an update to Wikiquote_talk:Fictional_characters#Notability_exception. I will post a similar query to Ningauble (talk · contributions) and UDScott (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request 4 Advice ( & assistance ? )

Hello, BD2412. Please allow me to introduce myself : I'm CononOfSamos, & I formerly edited under the Username Archimedes. I am trying at the moment to find the best solution to a page naming issue involving Thomas Fuller ( I've been adding material to the page for Thomas Fuller, the English physician and aphorist, 1654-1734 ). The Wikiquote page was titled Thomas_Fuller_(physician), but the corresponding page on Wikipedia is titled Thomas_Fuller_(writer). There are also a number of other Thomas Fullers, including Thomas Fuller (1608-1661), an English clergyman and historian, who also has a page on Wikiquote ( the situation is even more complicted on Wikipedia - I have saved some notes on my Talk page, please read them if you can spare the time ). I made note of this situation in a brief note on the Talk page of InvisibleSun ; another editor (Kalki) then moved the Wikiquote page for Thomas Fuller (1654-1734) from Thomas_Fuller_(physician) to Thomas_Fuller_(writer), which is certainly an improvement, in that it results in a consistent naming scheme between Wikiquote and Wikipedia. However. I am of the opinion that a better way to improve the situation would have been to move the Wikipedia page for Thomas Fuller (1654-1734) to Thomas_Fuller_(physician). Not only is this a better designation for Thomas Fuller (1654-1734) than the present designation : the earlier Thomas Fuller was a more prolific writer than the later T.F. : and in addition, the edits that I have been making, and also additional edits planned for the future, involve direct links to the Fuller page from the page for Poor Richard's Almanack : the links I've already made point to Thomas_Fuller_(physician) , so if the present move stands, they should be updated to direct links for efficiency, if I've correctly understood how these links work. I am fairly sure that I am not able to make the Wikipedia change that I think should be made here ( from Thomas_Fuller_(writer)to Thomas_Fuller_(physician) ; I've made additional edits to the Wikiquote page since Kalki moved it, so I'm not sure whether it would be safe now to revert his change, and in any case, I've never yet done one of these moves, so I'm unfamiliar with the correct procedure to begin with ( though I feel I should learn the right way to make such an edit ). I'm bugging you about this crap because a) I believe that you are an editor who is able to make the change I've mentioned on Wikipedia, and b) I believe that you are experienced in making this type of change and could therefore, at the very least, warn me if there are things here that I've either misunderstood or failed to properly consider. Please let me know, on my talk page, whether I've understood this situation properly. Thank you, CononOfSamos (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)