Status: I will be away for family matters until September 2. bd2412 T (e)
I know I have been a trouble maker in the past but if you look at all my edits so far you will notice most of them are actually really good like how I did a massive remodel on the Lil Wayne article or the articles I've created and updated constantly such as Pimp C,Bun B,Ludacris,Anthony Hamilton,Eazy E,Bushwick Bill,Willie D,Z-Ro, and T-Pain. So I was hoping you would support my effort to become one of few teenage Administrators. Thanks a million Deezy D 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I generally reserve support for admin candidates until they have at least six months on the project, and a few thousand edits. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, I don't know bupkis about wikipedia or I'd be usin all that flashy mark up crap. All I wanna say is, you deleted the French proverbs article and *thanks a lot*. Like any proverb can be "sourced". That was such a neat article and it hurts my heart that, because sayings don't have any place to be cited to, they just aren't good enough for wikiquotes. Unless there's some other wiki that deals exclusively with sayings whose origins have been lost to time, this is rather upsetting. Not that anything will happen, just lettin you know that you made somebody sad for the sanctity of a website (which really only benefited from the page).
- I don't know that this is the case. Perhaps all of the entries on this page listed as "proverbs" are just made up, phrases that the editor who added them thought sounded nice, whether or not they are actually used as proverbs. How do we know any of these are actual proverbs? Just because someone put them on this page doesn't make them so. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I see you restored the French proverbs that could be sourced. I had added a dozen or so items to Scottish Gaelic proverbs (referenced but naturally unsourced) which too were deleted, but found out they could presumably be put into en-wikt. Would you consider restoring the deleted page (temporarily and/or as a subpage of my userpage at least) so I could transfer them? Not having anticipated this situation I haven't backed them up. Thanks, --Thrissel 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. They are now at User:Thrissel/Scottish Gaelic proverbs. Some of them do appear to be partially sourced, but the sourcing is by footnotes, and not inline as our formatting rules require. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! But it seems I may have got it wrong after all: does "unsourced" mean "without known author" or a Wikisource analogy to Wikipedia's "unreferenced" or Wiktionary's "unverified" - and in case it's the latter, could those few proverbs stay here if I reformatted them like this? --Thrissel 22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The example you link looks fine to me. "Unsourced" means no citation is given, like Wikipedia's "unreferenced". When an authoritative secondary source is cited, even if the origin is unknown or unknowable, then it is not unsourced. See Wikiquote:Sourcing#Proverbs. On theme pages I sometimes cite these as "Anonymous proverb reported in...", but in a "Proverbs" page this would be more or less implicit. ~ Ningauble 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and for the link - I'll start working on it tonight and see if I can improve some of them toward the "earliest known literary appearance" principle. --Thrissel 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. I deleted everything unsourced, found a few sources earlier than those which were used for some of the proverbs and moved the page back into mainspace. Feel free to have a look and correct anything I might still have done wrong. Cheerio, --Thrissel 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Very good, in fact. BD2412 T 00:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Thrissel 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is David as you could guess from my user name I was told by my friend I go to school with that to get a good reputation on here as a person who does not vandalize and do useless edits to become friends or at least get to know and become friendly with the adminstrators. I have hope to become an adminstrator one day to so it couldn't hurt to try to become friends now. David.Green 15:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, noticed an history merge on Work et al.: I see that the history is very confusing, did you merge articles with overlapping (in terms of time) edit histories? Nemo 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. With all of the pages for which Hoyt's 1922 New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations had corresponding entries, I first formatted all the Hoyt's quotes on a subpage, then merged the subpage into the article page. I think I did around 400-500 of those, the rest requiring the creation of new pages. To a lesser extent, I have similarly merged in subpages of material from other public domain collections, the Dictionary of Legal Quotations, and the Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers. BD2412 T 21:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why, this makes histories completely unreadable. Histories should never be merged if they overlap, it makes impossible to understand who did what, and this could even be a copyright problem (attribution is given to diffs, and you alter diffs). See for instance m:Help:Import#Merging_histories_and_other_complications. I hope most of those pages didn't have overlapping histories. Thanks, Nemo 11:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would guess that most of these pages do in fact have overlapping histories. However, I tidied each page to some extent, removed many unsourced quotes, and checked for copyvios, before merging in the Hoyt's information. With respect to attribution, this is not Wikipedia. Virtually everything added to any page here is expected to be a non-copyrightable contribution, since all we have are collections of public domain quotes. And any editor seeking to add their own "original" contributions would be in violation of Wikiquote policies. To the extent that attribution is significant, the alternative to merging the edit histories would be to exclude the substantial edit history of the importation, formatting, augmentation, and correction of literally thousands of Hoyt's quotes - a tremendous undertaking requiring hundreds of hours of work and thousands of edits, that in many cases doubled or tripled the content of the pages to which they were added. BD2412 T 14:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. The alternative – if you want all that to be in the history – would be to delete (i.e. selectively undelete and move) the overlapping history of the article (I guess edits on those pages belong to a narrower period?), or move the article history to some Wikiquote: subpage, and then merge the history of Hoyt's quotes pages. If the history is confusing it doesn't give any attribution to those hundreds of hours of work either. Unmerging histories is quite horrible a task, though (and revdeletion could be a bit ugly perhaps), so what's done is done. Cheers, Nemo 15:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merged overlapping histories are indeed difficult to work with. Attribution for the contributions is in there, but it is very hard to dig it out. Alas, I do not know how to do this any better: when I first attempted a history merge I just broke the page, and I have not repeated the attempt. ~ Ningauble 00:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at every set of edit histories as I merged the pages. I really don't think I disrupted any vital stream of contributions. There were certainly many pages where contributions were otherwise few and far between, although pages like Love and War obviously have always had a lot going on. BD2412 T 00:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps I looked at the "wrong" pages. :-) There are ways to fix things if needed, they're just boring; but if you decide to do something on some particularly difficult cases for selective deletion/undeletion etc., I can help if you want (I've some experience with it). Nemo 07:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this comment. Can you please leave a note at the user's talk page about this sort of unhelpful rhetoric? -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the mention in the discussion itself is sufficient. I'll address the situation directly if the same editor says the same sort of thing again. BD2412 T 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, and on that note, please see below. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I mentioned you
Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruption_and_incivility_by_Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And ... the rhetoric continues
diff -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note the edit summary chosen here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that. This one, also. BD2412 T 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is this tolerable behavior on Wikiquote? Can I start using that sort of rhetoric as well? Are there zero repercussions for Kalki's behavior? -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So ... that's it then, no consequences for Kalki? -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- EVERYTHING has consequences, ALWAYS. SOME of the consequences for me are these: I WILL BE FAR MORE ATTENTIVE TO YOU and your activities NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. I had done what I could to not pay MUCH attention to them, as you were someone I genuinely held to be so extremely ignorant, confused, misguided and hostile to MUCH of the grace in humanity that there was not much I could do for you any time soon — and I prefer to HELP others, NOT HURT THEM and their abilities to do GOOD in this world. I don't make any claim that you will be a major focus for me — I won't go to that extreme, but I will try to be more genuinely considerate and polite to you. But I will retain hostility to any actions I consider unjust or improper, and yet sincerely try to minimize personalistic allusions in my criticisms of them. Blessings to ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
@BD2412, unfortunately Kalki stated at the admin noticeboard: "I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives." — therefore it is clear that without repercussions, Kalki sees zero problem with his inappropriate rhetoric continuing in the future. What can be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you seem to believe there is zero problem with your inappropriate focus on finding some ways to find some ALLY in your apparent will to PUNISH me and constrain my freedoms to speak, for daring to persist in disagreeing with you about MANY things, and standing by my honest perspectives without ANY intentions to bow down and behave like a craven coward as some might possibly wish. I truly hope that you will grow more enlightened to the grace within other people and not continue to project ASSUMPTIONS of DARKNESS and extreme malice or ill will where it actually does NOT exist. Blessings to you — may the day soon come when you recognize me as an HONEST friend. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear BD2412's response on whether Kalki should have zero repercussions for his continued attacks and inappropriate rhetoric. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- What continued attacks am I making, now? I am defending ALL people's rights to freely speak without fear of coercion and punishment for expressing sincere opinions, including YOU. I hardly consider this an attack. May the grace of Humanity be increasingly recognized and welcomed by you, now and forever more, throughout all the days of your life. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kalki's attempts at having The Last Word are transparent, whilst at the same time repeatedly refusing to redact his multiple inappropriate behavior, rhetoric, and attacks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the last word: the discussion on this page is closed. Further comments relating to this topic should be restricted to the ongoing discussions at the Village Pump and the Administrator's Noticeboard. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Understood, sounds good, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate very much your kind comments about me at WQ:AN, especially this. So nice to know that my efforts here are considered valuable by other respected members of the community on this site such as yourself! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
BD2412, I've quoted you, here: Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice
Thanks for the advice (responses). I agree with it and to that end I'll be seeking out even more talk page input from the community, as I am currently doing (ongoing) in the straw poll on Image use policy I've setup, which is based on your recommendations. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
a sad day
Thank you for the actions and admonishments you made yesterday. It is a sad day when this becomes necessary. I hope that the parties will indeed reflect upon and strive for constructive discussion. ~ Ningauble 17:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am optimistic that things will work out for the best, and that our editors will come around to a more productive focus. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Example of noteworthy quote
What do you think about the noteworthiness of this quote, from a book published by St. Martin's Press ?
- The donkey punch is one of the most unique euphemisms of our time. It falls into the class of theoretical euphemisms that are infrequent, impractical, and violent. The almost purely theoretical nature of the donkey punch makes it one of the most informative euphemisms about contemporary American society.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The only Jordan Tate reported in Wikipedia is a ficitonal character from Baywatch, and not the author of this quote. A comment from a dictionary having non-notable authorship is highly unlikely to be independently notable, in my view. BD2412 T 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But doesn't the quote itself say something about the impact of this particular euphemism? -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. I could make up a word, say, Canadiculous, and define it as meaning "something ridiculous from Canada", and then self-publish (or possibly get someone else to publish) a work that says "Canadiculous is the most important word ever created in the history of mankind, and it is of vital importance in understanding American views of Canada". My ability to do so does not make the quote notable in the least. Of course, it would become notable if, for example, Jay Leno quoted it on the Tonight Show. BD2412 T 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hrm, "get someone to publish" is the operative phraseology here, and we are talking about a book by St. Martin's Press. It was not self-published. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even for the most legitimate and well-established publisher, the identity of the publisher itself does not make every sentence in every work published by it "notable", much less "quotable". There is nothing about the author or the work to make this publication notable, and nothing about the quote to suggest that anyone thinks it quotable. BD2412 T 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion, of course. I'm just saying that "one of the most unique euphemisms of our time", seems to be a quotable comment from a book published by a legitimate publisher, St. Martin's Press. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries, understood, -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion
Thank you for your suggestion to create the page Sexual slang. Done, I've gone ahead and created the page, taking entries from Donkey punch that refer to multiple sexual slang sex terms. Thanks again! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
re New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Yes, I am very into Freedom of speech — you could say it's my main motivation for editing across all wikis — always has been! I've actually read another different book by Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, and I'm planning on writing a Wikipedia article about that book sometime soon. ;) But my absolute favorite freedom of speech legal case has gotta be Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, I'd love to get that to Featured Article, someday ... -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Free speech cases are a fascinating lot. I should start more pages on them! BD2412 T 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. As are "cases" that push out the boundaries of accepted free speech. ... ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Either would be better than full censorship via deletion, but I suppose merging the history to Sexual slang is the best option for now. I'll do some more research on that general topic and add some quotes to flesh out that page more. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done Cheers! BD2412 T 18:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Advice re Kalki
- BD2412, about a month ago, you asked me to try to avoid confrontations with Kalki, diff. At the same time, you blocked Kalki for 2 days, for Incivility, block log.
- This advice becomes difficult when it is apparent that Kalki is following my edits.
- I edited the page Al Franken. diff
- Kalki (talk · contributions) showed up to the same page less than 60 minutes later. diff
- Kalki (talk · contributions) has never edited this page before, ever. I checked.
Would it be possible for you to please ask Kalki to avoid my edits to this project?
As I believe you have stated in this past, with so many other pages on Wikiquote, it'd be a good idea for us to try to avoid each other.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, Kalki (talk · contributions) has made several inappropriate comments at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (2nd request). He uses words to refer to another user (myself) such as, "dictatorial", and "delusions". Certainly this goes against proper behavior and is quite similar to the behavior that warranted the most recent block?? -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you can recognize blatant harassment occurring here — on Cirts part. I was doing editing on the project. He made one edit to the Franken page to post some links, and there seemed no further sign of his activity when I noticed this and began editing about 40 minutes later. I saw the page had been posted for a cleanup since 2009, and decided to do one. While I was editing he began editing and paring down what I had done, and so rapidly that I did NOT even realize he was doing any edits simultaneously with me until AFTER I was ENTIRELY done. ONCE I actually NOTICED him I was DISGUSTED with many of his edits, but decided NOT to get into a confrontation with him at this time. His subsequent edits have pared things down considerably and demonstrate him once again trying to IMPOSE new regulations here which DEFY years long conventions which he is seeking to OVERTURN rapidly and radically. He then accused me of "Following him around" on my talk page and here, to add to the ridiculous and contemptible accusations he has made about me over the years. I have MUCH better things to do than focus on such PETTINESS as he regularly exhibits, and I am simply asserting that many of his assertions here are OBVIOUSLY exaggerations and attempts to bait me into actually expressing such contempt as I believe his actions and actions DESERVE in ways that might actually warrant more censure than his general behavior. I am sorry he decided to bother you about this, but I am simply asserting what a ridiculous accusation this is, and that I indeed INTEND to avoid Cirt to the extent I can, but sure as hell am NOT going to commit myself to NOT editing a page once he does. I am sure he would LOVE that sort of restriction on myself or others, as finding ways to focus on some form of the debasement of the worth or rights of others in various ways seems to be a common element in MOST of his page creations of which I am aware.
- I noticed he did add further quotes which are an improvement to the Franken page, but I can't actually consider most of his reductive edits after mine to be such. And with this subject having been brought up, I will note that a few months ago Cirt took a great deal of credit for the "saving" of Jean-Luc Picard page from deletion, and I thought that rather a stretch, because I had begun doing a cleanup on it a day earlier, and he jumped into that process, and I was slightly irritated because my last edit had indicated I intended to do more, but I did NOT whine and complain about it, or even his taking credit for "saving" it from deletion. All three of us actually edited the page that day over a spans of several hours, without any major disputes about it that I can recall, and I was simply pleased the article was saved, but found it a bit irritating he was claiming pretty much sole credit for having done that, but did not find that a matter of such importance to complain about, let alone that he had started major work on a page I had stated I would be working on. Live and Let Live is something I tend to abide by, and I find it unfortunate that either of us have been bothered anew by Cirt's accusations against me. So it goes... Happy St. Patrick's Day. ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Cirt, I have no intention of addressing Kalki's comments in his RfA, because it is his RfA, and it was unnecessary for you to comment there at all, much less to bring up all the past matters of which everyone who participates in such discussions is well aware. As for stalking, has Kalki reverted good edits that you have made, or otherwise made bad edits to articles that you have edited? If not, I don't see why you would let it bother you at all. BD2412 T 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully and strongly disagree with the majority of your opinion here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Dunces and dullards"?
The last sentence by the owner of the a talk page in his response in this section seems very clearly to refer to editors who have expressed opinions on this topic. Is it really acceptable WQ policy for an editor to refer to other editors as "dunces and dullards"? I haven't been active enough to know the answer, but I thought the admins might have an opinion. Thanks for anything you can say or do about this. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The comment is expressly directed towards "people generally". The "humanity has long borne witness" part suggests a time period prior to anyone expressing opinions on Wikiquote. BD2412 T 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the formulation seems to be misanthropic rather than an hominem. This may make it less actionable in some contexts. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the way it reads to others, it's OK with me. - 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sudden changing of Punctuation standards
I am just briefly checking in and must be leaving again soon — but I have noticed you going through articles and changing what had been the most prevalent punctuation standard on most pages, and one common to many quote compendiums where descriptive lines of information on a quote are not treated as full sentences, to one that conforms to a rather archaic presumption that a descriptive line (such as a title, or those used in such lines) must be treated AS IF it were a sentence. I do not believe that imposing such presumptive standards are necessary or proper, and aesthetically I have always preferred the unpunctuated info lines, with punctuation used only occasionally for any full sentences within them. I probably don't have time to discuss things at present, but do not approve of the massive changes. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- We should be consistent one way or the other. Some pages have both punctuated and unpunctuated references, and some references contain full sentences of exposition following the quote. Therefore, I'm going this way. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also, in addition to punctuating reference lines, I am removing extra blank spaces following the ends of lines, and moving final periods outside of syntax and parentheses, so that if a reference line ends with .'' I am changing it to ''., and if a line ends in .) I am changing it to ).. Cheers again! BD2412 T 22:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you reading them to parse the semantics, or proceeding with full-speed automation? (A parenthetical sentence needs a full stop within the parentheses.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Um... it does? Oops, per the Chicago Manual of Style, yes it does. I had thought it was the other way around. I'll take that change out of the list. BD2412 T 00:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, well, we have bigger problems than inconsistency in whether non-sentential bullet items use a full stop. (Personally, I don't use them. I was schooled not to, but I know there are other schools of thought.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, it bothers me. It bothers me and I can shoot through a few hundred pages in a matter of hours and fix them all, which is a potent combination of drivers. BD2412 T 17:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article make clear whether each quote is from the earlier or later version, or both?--Collingwood (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the only difference between the earlier and later editions is the addition of a gloss, a set of explanatory notes in a column alongside the poem itself, from which no quotes have been taken. BD2412 T 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be the case, I'm afraid. Just in the opening verse, in 1798 Line 4 was "Now wherefore stoppest me?" whereas in 1817 it was "Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?" as quoted.--Collingwood (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have added a note that quote on the page are from the 1817 edition. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Ujjwal Patni
Dear Contributor, Greetings
I created the page Ujjwal Patni. Truly speaking, promotion was never my intention. His books and discourses, especially 'Power Thinking' transformed my life and many other lives too. I thought to create his page to take his meaningful and bold thoughts to the global wiki community. I tried to be genuine by putting the page numbers and titles of books to avoid issues related to plagiarism. Being new to Wiki quote, probably i was not able to present the page nicely so other contributors rated it promotional. You are right that his field of work will generate quotes in future. I want to present this page in the most impartial and non-promotional way. I would also take efforts to ensure that his page never become a platform for promotional activities. Need your support and guidance regarding this.
Wisdomage1950 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As per your comments on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ravenor, I've started a vote on promoting it to guideline status. Cheers. --Tryst (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks! BD2412 T 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, just wondering if this bot is approved. It doesn't show up as a bot through Special:ListUsers, so it presumably hasn't been flagged. Thanks. --Tryst (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Some Bartlett fixes
Hello. On your user page, you list some pages with items the Bartlett's 1919 index that need fixing. I've sourced all the items in page 01, and you may want to remove it from your list. On to the next... Macspaunday (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tennyson is done, but Bacon, Chaucer, and others remain. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I just realized I did only part of the job. I finished the ones on page "01" of your list, but not the Bartlett-only sourced ones on the page. Will get to those next. Onward and upward. Macspaunday (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Adding a stanza or line numbers does not make the quote fully cited; it still needs the work containing it and the year, and should continue to reflect its inclusion in Bartlett's until those are found. The point of citation is so that someone finding the quote here can confirm its existence in the original source cited. BD2412 T 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Understood (at long last). Have supplied first-edition sources for all the ones I modified earlier. More soon. Macspaunday (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the way to do it. Good work! BD2412 T 03:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
may I have the content of the last version of List of tongue-twisters, which you deleted at 17:24, 28 December 2011, please?
I devoted lots of work into this article. I would like to preserve it as a user subpage.
Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- The content of the page is now at User:Adam78/List of tongue-twisters. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! Adam78 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I request renaming my following accounts:
- محمد الجداوي → Avocato
- GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
- Confirmation link: 
- Reason: Privacy reasons
Thanks in advance.--محمد الجداوي (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Eek! the Cat quotes
Wow thanks! How on earth did you find that Newsweek source?! Obviously your Google-foo is better than mine. -- Vladhed (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding status, I hope you're doing okay and you come out well. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- The winds are howling and the rains are pouring, but I still have power, so here I am, still editing. BD2412 T 03:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- +1 good luck. --Nemo 08:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very glad you seem to have come out alright. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
re Case citations
Replied on my user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about my quality improvement efforts to Wikiquote
BD2412, thanks very much for your kind words at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Liam Hemsworth about my quality improvement efforts to Wikiquote. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any advice on how or where I could go about further research or say anything else at the VFD to save the page MediaWiki? -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there are a few worthwhile quotes on the page, but they are drowned out by chaff. Consider, if a company like IBM or AT&T posted a page of quotes like these, we would probably delete it for looking like advertising, even if a few of the quotes were good. BD2412 T 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was not my intention when doing the research into secondary sources. Perhaps you could recommend either in a post to the VFD page or the article's talk page, which quotes are the best to retain? -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Help with MediaWiki?
I've just trimmed down significantly the prior version of sourced quotes on the page MediaWiki. I believe that the sourced quotes left on the page now are the most pithy and quoteworthy and quotable and interesting of the bunch. What do you think? I'm about to embark on doing some more research to find other quotes to make an effort to try to save the page from deletion, care to help out? -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, recent discussion around the Bertrand Russell article made me wonder about possible copyvio problems with some quotes, a subsection and a sub-article. Since I have little experience in how to proceed here, I would like to ask you if you could advice what to do next? -- Mdd (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi BD2412, this question is about my 01:55, 23 January 2013 comment: I took a closer look at Russell's Nobel Lecture, "What Desires Are Politically Important?". That section in the current article contains about 3310 words, while the Noble lecture at nobelprize.org contains 5708 words. Now this seem to be quite a violation of Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. Here you seem to have a legitimate argument to trim this section, if I am not mistaken. I would very much appreciate that this would be sorted out, and if needed some boundaries are set. If you don't have the time, please say so. Otherwise I can ask some people from Wikipedia to take a look at it. -- Mdd (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The Dark Crystal
- Question, are these pages for stating the quotes from a film, TV show, video game, book and so on... or for reviews and people's opinions about them? Because user Mariomassone is doing that on the The Dark Crystal page. I don't see this on other pages around here.-184.108.40.206 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is fine to have quotes about a work if they are independently notable and reliably sourced. BD2412 T 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that "if" is significant. From my perspective, these examples of gushing remembrance and authorial omphaloskepsis don't possess any real quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. Could you take a look at WQ:Changing username? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done, sorry for the backup! BD2412 T 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for advice about DanielTom
- Chronology of events
- Comment from user on en.wikipedia in an admin noticeboard thread about DanielTom (talk · contributions)
- Following that comment, I filed a sockpuppet investigation case page about DanielTom (talk · contributions)
- Accounts were found to be unrelated. However, the case investigation was indeed found to at least be warranted and valid, and justified checks by three (3) Checkusers.
- Fast forward to now, and the user DanielTom (talk · contributions) that was checked by the three (3) Checkusers in that case, appears to be attempting to retaliate in kind.
- This user DanielTom (talk · contributions) has declared himself judge and jury of me, and is making declarations of what I can and cannot do. He chooses to use command form grammar against me, such as: diff "Stop that."
- I am a Checkuser on en.wikinews, and in that capacity the mailing list emails us about cross-wiki spammers and Confirmed sock accounts.
- In cases of any question, I myself voluntarily of my own initiative bring these matters for comment by other admins.
- I then make a practice of stating multiple times that I will defer to the judgment of other admins.
- Of course, as a matter of habit I also make a practice to avoid undoing or reverting any other sysop's admin actions.
- Unfortunately, this type of vendetta like behavior pattern is quite disturbing. It is pretty established that it is alright to block cross-wiki-spammer accounts that have been identified as such on the Checkuser mailing list and Confirmed as such by Checkusers.
Again, as I make a habit of seeking out input and guidance from other admins and also deferring to their judgment, I am doing so again here and asking for your advice about what to do in this case.
Thank you for your time,
-- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Am I expected to respond to this joke? ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, you only "defer to the judgment of other admins" after doing whatever you like first, with complete disregard for Wikiquote policy.
- BD2412, here is my advice to you: block User:Cirt. This guy is an absolute troll. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This does not seem to rise to the level of requiring administrator intervention. DanielTom was accused of being a sock, and was found by a group of checkusers to not be one. In other words, he was falsely accused. Why would you expect him to be deferential to you after that? There is no prohibition against one editor speaking to another in "command form" grammar - certainly, you are free to ignore him, or explain why he is wrong in terms of policy. Indeed, the best way to deal with to deal with difficult editors is to stay calm and remain above the fray. BD2412 T 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with that "sock" accusation. Cirt keeps bringing it up — which shows extremely bad faith on his part — but it is clearly just a malicious maneuver by him to deflect attention. Basically, here is what he is saying: every time you dare criticize me, I'm going to tell everyone about your "sock" case. Pathetic.
- People familiar with me know that I have criticized many other users in the past — including editors I greatly admire, such as Ningauble and Kalki —, so accusing me of having a "vendetta" against Cirt is just absolute nonsense.
- To repeat. User:Cirt should either grow up, or be blocked. (I incline towards a 24h block, myself, to remind him that he can't do whatever he pleases just because he is an admin.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- @BD2412 (talk · contributions), thank you for the advice, I value and respect and often seek out the advice of other admins, and I will do my best to follow your advice in this case, -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not blocking anyone in this situation. If a disagreement over some interpretation of policy exists, work it out or bring it to the community if you can't. Also, since Cirt is an admin, that by itself signifies that this community trusts his judgement in resolving questions of policy. While no admin can do whatever he or she pleases, admins can and do block known sockpuppet accounts. The fact that such blocks are subject to community review and reversion by other admins is a sufficient safeguard against an error by any one admin. This is my last word on the subject. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, BD2412, I agree, and I trust the judgment and ability of other admins to review my admin decisions. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- BD2412, did you by any chance miss Cirt's bogus list at the beginning of this conversation? Do you not realize that that was just him trying to covertly attack me (for the second time, even after being asked not to)? I find it a pity that no one is willing to block this troll. To be sure, this is not just a question about policy; it is very clear that it's not possible to discuss with Cirt about policy because he goes to great lengths to evade any responsibility and, worse, it's also slightly hard to discuss or interpret a policy that doesn't exist in the first place. As to your last point, well, Cirt became an admin here just 3 months after starting out. Given his history — a disturbing enjoyment and predisposition to harass users even if they haven't made any malicious edits here — I cannot, and do not, for my part, trust his judgement — particularly in matters of sock puppetry, for obvious reasons... Yours, etc., DanielTom (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- You may remember this, BD2412: here is something I said a month before Cirt even decided to open that unfortunate case at Wikipedia:
- User:Cirt likes to pretend that I only started criticizing him after that malicious case, but as I've said before — and as the cited diff shows — that is just complete and absolute nonsense. So, there... Nothing like a little evidence to wake him up from his delusions. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal attack by DanielTom
Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attack_by_DanielTom.
Can something be done about this?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's say I know someone whom I think is (for example) considering suicide. What Cirt is saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". Well, it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, here are the supposed "personal attacks" I made to User:Cirt:
I stand by these assertions, namely that 1) I think Cirt should be blocked [or better yet, desyopped, to prevent him from continuing to abuse his admin tools and status] and 2) I think Cirt needs mental help. I tell the truth as I see it, and if it gets me blocked, I have no problem with that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) last edit: 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- From my reading of that page, it seems like local bureaucrats are going to be stripped of renaming authority altogether, and that all renames will need to proceed through Meta. BD2412 T 23:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think folks are anticipating that before the change, when notices go out, there will be a flurry of local requests to rename non-SUL accounts by people who want to avoid default disambiguation of their names. Also, before and after the change there may be local enquiries from folks who don't understand what is going on. We should revise WQ:CHU and WQ:CHU/U to direct people to Meta for assistance when the change goes into effect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. – When I first saw the translation request, I thought the idea of translating from English to Wikiquotish was an intriguing prospect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. I know this may seem like a childish question, but is Cirt allowed to completely screw up the order of posts when archiving his talk page? Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Editors are basically free to archive their pages however they want within their own user space. BD2412 T 12:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- How convenient!... Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- (unrelated) Don't you like dramah? Thanks for not replying to my email. ;-) Problem "solved" now, just letting you know that. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I am completing the global rename of my old account. Could you please rename this account, Dmcdevit (talk · contributions) to Dominic (talk · contributions)? Thanks! Dmcdevit (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Since the account, User:Dominic, has already been created on this wiki, a usurpation request would normally need to be made as to that name. Normally, this requires a three week wait after the request is made, meaning that it could not be fulfilled prior to May 28, 2013. However, in accordance with the new single user login protocols from Meta, this account would automatically be usureped on May 27 anyway, regardless of the account owner's preferences on the matter. Therefore, I will make the move now. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done Cheers! BD2412 T 00:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
request for bot flag
I have made a request for user:CarsracBot some time ago. Carsrac (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, apologies, but you've done exactly what I didn't want you to do. I only wanted William usurped so that the local account would be out of the way so I could attach it to User:William's SUL based over on de.wiktionary; I did not want WilliamUK here to be part of that SUL, and I'm only using that account so I can request usurpations on other wikis without having to edit logged-out. Please detach the William here, rename that to WilliamUK so I can attach it back, and then it's out the way for the de.wiktionary-based unified account. Cheers. WilliamUK (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let me know if I've got it right now. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Please review my request here for SUL! Faizan Al-Badri (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
welcome (talk page)
Sorry for meddling in your affairs, but shouldn't we welcome new users on their talk pages? Please check this edit. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are quite correct. Thanks for fixing it. BD2412 T 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I figured it was just a lapse, but I thought it best to notify you. Yours etc., DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes even Homer nods. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you comparing yourself to Homer? :) Oh, please semi-protect the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page, an IP keeps deleting all its content. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The expression is intended to suggest that if even a great writer like Homer makes mistakes, what chance does a poor schlub like me have? BD2412 T 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Thanks. New expression for me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC))
- See annotation at Horace, Ars Poetica, line 359. Unfamiliarity with literary allusions (particularly where usage may primarily be an Anglophone idiom) can lead to lots of misunderstandings. One of the chief benefits of a compendium of quotations is to foster better understanding between people by spreading awareness of how language is used. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ningauble earns an extra point for the Horace reference. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Trolling by Cirt
Hi BD2412. Remember changing my username? Please check the most recent trolling by Cirt.  Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- DanielTom (talk · contributions) was recently blocked on en.wikipedia for socking, email abuse, and personal attacks. 
- These blocks were carried out by multiple other admins. 
- His socks are now also being globally locked. 
- This isn't just about "Cirt", this is Checkusers and Admins on multiple sites cracking down on multiple forms of abuse crosswiki.
- Thank you for your time.
-- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant, Cirt. Just because I was blocked on Wikipedia (an independent, separate project), that does not mean you are entitled to create attack pages here. I have no "socks", but even if I did, why do you create their pages here just to enjoy yourself? You can't do that. Creating the User:Diogotome was abusive on your part, as he didn't have any edits here. Also, saying that my renamed account ("Daniel Tomé") is a "sock" kind of gives away your trolling, Cirt. Please go troll somewhere else. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to allow this, BD2412? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am studying for a certification exam that I am taking tomorrow afternoon, which will likely determine the future of my career. I'll review this situation on Friday. BD2412 T 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, okay, good luck to you!!! -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- We'll be crossing our fingers for you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Defer to your judgment
BD2412, I'll defer to your judgment or that of any other admin.
There's plenty of evidence of crosswiki socking, global lock on him for socking, email abuse, and more. If that's not enough for blocking of socks as part of crosswiki sock coordination, I don't know what is.
Good luck with your exams and your judgment in this matter, I'll respect whatever you want to do with this disturbing issue. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence of socking. There is evidence that my brother has the same IP as me, as we edit from the same house, and live in the same house. You know this, and yet are deliberately dishonest, Cirt. You even tagged my "Daniel Tomé" account as a sock, so that shows what a corrupt, pathetic troll you truly are. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am trying to figure out how you might prove such a claim. I posted a sympathetic comment on this point on the Wikipedia CU page. BD2412 T 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- BD2412, keep in mind those are the guys who blocked me in the first place. They don't want to revert the block. They (or most of them) already knew that we edit from the same house before running that staged "investigation", and never even mentioned it. I believe my brother has already "proved" his "claim" to ArbCom (he presented real evidence as opposed to speculation, which is important, and even sent them a picture of his Citizen Card, stating that the account is his). It is those admins who have zero evidence, and block people for their speculations. They even tagged my "Daniel Tomé" account as a "sock", for Christ's sake. Anyway, I am NOT asking that Diogotome be unblocked (or my "Daniel Tomé" rename to be unblocked). I don't particularly care about that. What I am asking is that these problems not be brought from other projects to Wikiquote. Cirt created a user page for an editor who had 0 edits here just to attack me. Wikiquote doesn't need any of that. Also, I don't think "Daniel Tomé" could ever be called a "sock" (where have I used it as a "sock"? Where is the deceit? You will note the account has my real name as always.), so I did ask your opinion on the following diffs , which I think should be corrected. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. We are all very "anti-authority" at my household. (Also, his first edit wasn't to ANI. ) P.P.S. I myself sent them an email with his citizen card, showing his name (Diogo Tomé), so I am not sure if those admins are still pretending that my brother doesn't exist. P.P.P.S. I trust your exam went well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have a brother too, although he doesn't live in the same house with me (indeed, not even in the same state). However, if he did live in the same house, and he did edit Wikimedia projects, I am still trying to figure out how I would prove that he and I were editing independently. I suspect that there are some people for whom no amount of proof would suffice. BD2412 T 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- BD2412, I'll be honest with you. Those admins do not care about evidence, they just want to lynch me. I have directly criticized admins "Cirt", "Rschen7754", and "Toddst1", in the past, on Wikipedia, and now they think it's payback time. Needless to say, those admins are way too WP:INVOLVED to be judging my case, but clearly they have already agreed among themselves to silence me, and to ignore even editors of your reputation, so don't get yourself into trouble just for me. It is interesting that you should ask who has the burden of proof: in real life, we have the so called "presumption of innocence", but not on Wikipedia. ("Assume good faith" doesn't apply to admins, apparently.) I have not seen any of these admins present any evidence, they just offer speculations. If they did that in real life, they would be laughed out of court. In any case, my brother has already "proved" that the account is his (not to mention that he sent them a picture of his Citizen Card with his name on it, but somehow these people are still pretending that he doesn't exist... Also, he created his "Diogotome" account in 2009 with his email, same email that he used to create his Facebook account years ago, and which he still uses). If those admins were the judges in real life cases, they'd be condemning innocent men to death at an incredible rate, and never feel any remorse. What still bothers me is how they, and Cirt here, also tagged my "Daniel Tomé" rename as a "sock", which I find so dishonest and deceiving. I don't mind that it be blocked, but I do mind the sock tagging, so could you knock some sense into them please? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. I have two brothers, one an evil twin, the other four years older than me (he is now studying abroad, so we don't share the same IP). P.P.S. I am reminded of the comment: "If this were real court, this guy would be the judge." ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- BD2412, if you could remove the deceitful "sock" tag from my "Daniel Tomé" account, that would be great. It is a rename, not a "sock", and as it has my real name in it the tag was placed there just to attack me. (If I ever run for office...) Keep it indef blocked, of course, but please remove the dishonest tag. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken, the account IS a claimed sockpuppet of the sockmaster
@BD2412, you are mistaken, the account is not just a rename but also a claimed sockpuppet by the sockmaster, per admin Toddst1: "You'll notice that the name change from Daniel Thome to DanielTom was effective March 24, 2013, yet Daniel Thome was recreated and used to edit on 17:12, 3 April 2013.". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- BD2412, of course, however, I will not undo an admin action if you sympathetically decide to use your admin tools to delete the userpage of a confirmed and tagged sockpuppet. That is, of course, up to you. I leave that in your judgment. I will take no further part in this, either way. I wish you the best of luck in your judgments. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see nothing justifying such a determination on this project. BD2412 T 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The only edit my "Daniel Tomé" account has on Wikipedia is a signature on a comment, which I corrected 2 minutes later (which shows I never tried to hide anything, it was a public rename). That was soon after my rename, so I was still not used to the new log in. Anyway, as the names are so similar, how could they ever be used to deceive? It is no sockpuppet, under any definition, the tag was just put there to personally attack me. At least BD2412 had the decency to suggest that it should be deleted, and I certainly agree, as it stands that account only serves to dishonestly and unnecessarily attack my reputation and real name. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Having thought this over at length, there is no reason for this user page to exist on this project at all unless the user is unblocked and begins to edit from this account on this site in a deceptive manner. Thus far, there has been no actual sockpuppetry from this account on this project. BD2412 T 04:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you BD2412! I agree with your thinking, but shouldn't the same apply to my "Daniel Tomé" account on Wikipedia? It also only has one useless edit, and I ask that it also be deleted (I suppose it could be more controversial to delete my page on wikipedia, because so many more people want to attack my real name there, but I still think it should be done). Could you help me there (what is your thinking)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I now note how Cirt also created a page for "Daniel Tomé" on Wikinews and Wikisource, and labeled it as a sock, even knowing that they had zero edits there. This guy (Cirt) is simply a criminal and should be locked up in jail. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- My thinking is that I will not further involve myself in this matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay... Thanks, anyway. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much
Thank you so much for your additions to Freedom of speech, much appreciated! -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Shakespeare and Elementary School
I have no idea when kids start reading Shakespeare in the UK/USA, so I admit that was a cheap shot. In my country, we start reading the Portuguese equivalent of Shakespeare (Luís de Camões) as part of the mandatory reading list for middle school (i.e., just before high school, when we are about 14 years old), and study him more in depth in high school (up to age 17). [Not that we actually learn anything in Portuguese schools.] In my last year of high school, at our English class, we had to awkwardly read out loud "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" to one of our classmates (I remember trying to impress a girl with it, but I was unsuccessful — one hopes Shakespeare had better luck than me). Somehow, I still prefer Camões' love poems to Shakespeare's, although I am admittedly not knowledgeable enough to properly admire either of them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Query for help
BD2412, what do you think of this behavior pattern?
Can anything be done about this?
Should we allow this sort of behavior on Wikiquote?
Or more so, should we encourage this and try to recruit other contributors to Wikiquote who will also comport themselves in this manner?
Is there anything that can be done?
Thank you for your time,
-- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, I think you've already dishonestly attacked me enough for a lifetime. In any case, I should remind you that you are an admin here — I do not know how, or why, but that's the unfortunate reality — so although I do not ask for BD2412 to condone my actions, I do agree that you should grow a thicker skin. There are many other things I could criticize you for (hint), so I don't see what's the big problem here. Indeed, I think the picture in question is pretty accurate (to me, it looks just like you). ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am also convinced that Cirt is a psychopath, and a criminal. Needless to say, I expect to be blocked for this, but what the hell. Cirt, please get help and stop harassing people. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Originally posted on another page: diff.
Comment: @BD2412 (talk · contributions), understood. I will take your advice to heart. I will do my best to not react to the baiting. I will do my best to only engage in a polite and constructive manner from here on out. I am sorry for troubling you with this. I will do my best to rise above this matter. Thank you for your advice and your input. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
One last query
One last query:
May I interact and reply to DanielTom (talk · contributions) if I only do so in a polite and constructive manner which implements your advice, to rise above, to not react to baiting?
The reason I ask is so that I may show a better example of myself to the community.
Thank you for your time,
-- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I'll keep to the restrictions you've set forth until I hear from you, but I'd just like to be able to both show the community a better example of myself and also to continue to contribute on pages where I've contributed content, such as for example Talk:My Life in Orange, where according to your restriction I'd be banned off the page — but actually I appreciated very much the recent polite and constructive comments by the other party and I believe we've turned a positive corner. Would that be alright with you? -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- For the time being, I would really rather that you avoid any opportunity to be drawn into conflict. You are, of course, free to leave general comments and suggestions, neutrally directed at page content, on talk pages where DanielTom happens to have commented. I am not asking you to stop editing, just to stop interacting with one specific editor for a while. Remember also, there is a limitless amount of work to be done, and no deadline by which to do it. There are thousands of other pages here and to be made to which each of you can turn your attentions without running into each other. BD2412 T 03:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- So am I forbidden from further replies to him at Talk:My Life in Orange? I think he and I have turned a corner on that particular page, and are interacting quite well, I think. Can I reply there if it's congenial in nature? -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since you've had the last word in that conversation, and I have banned DanielTom from interacting with you, there should be nothing for you to reply to. I'll counsel this editor as to his opinions of the contributions of others. BD2412 T 04:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I won't reply further to that individual. May I still comment at that particular talk page itself, to other people? -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to leave general comments and suggestions, neutrally directed at page content, at Talk:My Life in Orange or any other talk page. However, I would caution against tempting fate. I'm off for the night. BD2412 T 04:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but anyways on that one: Nevermind. I'll take your advice and provide a good faith example, and drop that particular page and its talk page off my watchlist. Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, after this closure can you delete this category as well, or do we need to start an other VFD? -- Mdd (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Empty category. Speedied. BD2412 T 01:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Note on availability
I'm traveling out of town for a couple weeks and I'll be in some remote areas with limited Internet access. I probably won't be able to respond to much or contribute that much of substance in any significant capacity for the next couple weeks. Taking some time to be with family and friends and reflect. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)