Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote

Jump to: navigation, search
edit the header
Create a new topic


Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive

General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

 Reference desk
comment | history | archive

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.
All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Archive
Archives


Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please click the link below "create a new topic" , and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.


Contents

[edit] Template:Quotation limit

Okay, I've been working on a new template for us to use in conjunction with our copyvio problem articles. The idea is to place {{quotation limit}} on the talk page, which will provide a quick reference for the editors that constantly do the pruning (usually sysops) when they need to go back in and cut stuff, as well as an explicit hard number to show people that keep adding content.

I've tried to make the template as simple as possible. All you have to do is specify the type of article (for the sake of clarity, I've only included the most problematic of types), and it will automatically spit out the requirements. For example:

{{quotation limit|type=tv}} will output:

VLC icon.png This article needs to conform to our limits on quotations policy.

The subject of this article is a television show, and as a result, there should only be: one quote for less than 30 minutes, two quotes for 30 minute shows, and five quotes for 60 minute shows (see our TV policy for shows of other lengths).

If you would like to add another quote to the page, you may first need to remove one that is already there in order to keep within the bounds of fair use of copyright material.


There are two optional fields. The first is length, which allows us to further specify just how long certain works are (ie: how many pages are in a book, or how long a show's episodes typically are). The second is the section, which changes the template to mention the requirements in conjunction with particular sections.

An example for length: if you use {{quotation limit|type=film|length=132 minutes}}, you'll get:

VLC icon.png This article needs to conform to our limits on quotations policy.

The subject of this article is a film, and as a result, there should only be: five quotes per hour (about one quote every 12 minutes).

If you would like to add another quote to the page, you may first need to remove one that is already there in order to keep within the bounds of fair use of copyright material.
For reference, the length of this work is: 132 minutes.


Anyway, I'm not thinking of this being plastered absolutely everywhere, though I wouldn't be opposed to it, but instead get used (especially at first) on the worst of the worst copyvio pages (I'm looking at you, The Nostalgia Critic), or to get placed on talk pages as they get cleaned up.

Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I like them and I would think this would help in the ongoing struggle to control some of these pages. I fully support their use. ~ UDScott 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Some articles already have copyright notices on their talk pages, but these templates are more noticeable and are therefore more likely to be effective. - InvisibleSun 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I also approve of making this more graphic. It has inpired me to experiment with developing a backbone message template for similar messages. (This is something I have been meaning to do for a while, because we should use a uniform style when we introduce additional prominent message boxes.)
The wording here is a good way to handle the heterogeneity of the policy, and I think it is ready to use as-is. I may make some additions and discuss at Template talk:Quotation limit. ~ Ningauble 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, one of those "oh yeah, been meaning to do that" things for me has been to import w:Template:Ambox from Wikipedia; that's the backbone for all the maintenance templates (and has since been spun out to several other WMF wikis). Would we want it here? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This context is more like that of w:Template:Tmbox. I am not sure it is best to just ape the Wikipedia style, although it is not the worst option. I also have some reservations about templates that rely on css maintained elsewhere. I see no reason not to have our own if we keep it simple. ~ Ningauble 18:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Using CSS pulled from the stylesheets is far better than inline styles for widely used stuff (like the ambox template); it allows users to cache the file, which means they're downloading less code with each page load, speeding up sites. (this is something true of regular websites, rather than wikis specifically; all the CSS necessary for ambox to work would get copied over to our local stylesheet, so that's a non-issue) I think we're doing just fine without it, though, which is one of the reasons I haven't really bothered copying everything over just yet. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Nostalgia Critic

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the new and improved The Nostalgia Critic article. Down to just 74k, which is a massive improvement over... 495k. I'm not even joking.[1]

Here's hoping we can keep it svelte. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] anon user and his nonexistent cats

For the past few days, an anon user with the IP 98.30.69.163 and anywhere within the 98.30.XX.XXX range has been putting jerry bruckheimer categories on virtually every article from bruckheimer movies. Ningauble and I have asked the user to stop putting them and yet he still persists. Do we block the IP? --Eaglestorm 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
But not without giving a warning first. ~ Ningauble 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good point, I thought per the comment above that was done already. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Better to have linked the mentioned discussion before. ~ Ningauble 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha article

... I just reworked that article, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, to attempt to deal with the cleanup it needed. That said, I wasn't quite comfortable with unilaterally removing the cleanup tag from that article after I reworked it, especially since I'm new here. So if some of my fellow editors could check that and see if they think it qualifies as sufficiently cleaned up, that would be wonderful. Thanks. Counterpower 04:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - I've removed the cleanup tag. ~ UDScott 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Defamation

Quotes in themselves are beyond NPOV, as they represent the point of view of a specific individual. But what happens if some person A makes a defamatory statement about some person B? It can't be edited to make it say something else, but should it be kept or removed? Belgrano 14:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? Cirt (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a question for your friendly neighborhood IP attorney! I will grant you that some people consider defamation to be separate from IP, but I never have, and I've had about a half dozen live cases where defamation was one of the causes of action. Here the concern is republication. If the statement at issue is clearly defamatory, for example, Joe Johnson says "I personally witnessed Sam Smith stealing money from the cash register at the grocery store", and we know the statement to be false, and yet we print the statement anyway, that is republication. Bear in mind, defamation in the United States is a state cause of action rather than a federal cause of action, so California has a different set of laws on the subject than Florida, which also has a different set of laws than Kansas, and so forth. We can not be held liable for reporting an allegedly defamatory quote if we note in the description that the claim made was in fact untrue. We are also immune from liability for reporting a statement made in the text of a court opinion. Finally, if the subject of the exam is a famous person, particularly a politician, the person must demonstrate that the statement was made with either knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity. BD2412 T 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make Love...

... a perfect entry. Horribly unsourced as it stands, and Love/Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers needs to be merged in. BD2412 T 16:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I just moved 56k of inadequately sourced quotes to the talk page. BD2412 T 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I've moved most of the quotes out as unsourced, I believe most will be sourceable. When they are returned, and the others noted above are moved in (and still more not noted above are moved in), the page will again be very long. I propose, therefore, breaking out shorter pages on Romantic love, Familial love, Religious love (or maybe Love of God/Love of Allah/Love of Brahma as appropriate), and leave only general and nonspecific love quotes on the "Love" page. BD2412 T 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think splitting is a far better choice, especially for the long run. I'd say let's start with religious love and then split that further once we have enough to do so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteers still needed

Hi all,
Although we removed the centralnotice that was up, the Wikimedia Foundation is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area experts or to sit on task forces that will study particular areas and make recommendations to the Foundation about its strategic plan. You may apply to serve on a task force or register your name as an expert in a specific area at http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Foundation's strategy project is a year-long collaborative process which is hosted on the strategy wiki, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) there. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and any member of the community may join fully in their work. This process is specifically designed to involve as many community members as possible.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on my talk page here or on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Finishing a task left uncompleted last year

Last year, after indicating suspicions on the Village Pump, I announced that I was disregarding and commenting out the votes of a couple then recent usernames, which I and several others strongly suspected were merely sockpuppets of another user. I never completed this task at that time, and am in the period of October and November when it seems they were primarily used. Though sockpuppetry for voting was never actually proven to be the case, these usernames were used for the most part merely to vote on QOTD suggestions, or to protest in various ways that this was all that they wished to do, and provided little or no contributions beyond that. Despite the lack of proof, I continue to strongly believe these accounts were sockpuppets used improperly for voting purposes, often using the extremes of the ranking scales to strongly skew the general voting results. Hence, I intend to continue the effort I began last year, to remove or at least comment out rankings made with the names User:Waheedone and User:Fossil in the days and weeks ahead, as I encounter them, in all QOTD voting pages. ~ Kalki 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising slogans as a table

I've put Advertising slogans into a table format. Seems workable (and useful) to me - any thoughts? BD2412 T 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio speedy delete

Note change at Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections

The guidelines set forth in Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections require a substantial overhaul, as I believe we have agreed as a community to extirpate unsourced quotes altogether. Please let me know if this is an incorrect understanding. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done. I'd also like to propose the addition of some specific language on misattributed quotes:
A missatributed quote is one that has been incorrectly attributed to a certain author. Misattributions may arise for any number of reasons, including:
  • innocent errors in translation or restatement of an original quote
  • incorrect identification between two authors of similar types of quotes
  • slander of the purported author by attributing detestable comments to that author
  • overzealous defense of a belief by attributing statements in support of that belief to an authoritative figure
Wikiquote's policy on misattributions is to include them, but to clearly identify them as misattributions by placing them in a "Misattributed" section, and to identify to the greatest extent possible the actual author and how the quote became misattributed.
What do you think? BD2412 T 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Provided that the "misattribution" was not done by Wikiquote itself (in that case the offending quote should just be removed), and provided that this "misattribution" was identified as such in independent reliable secondary sources - and not through a self-determination by individual Wikiquotians. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I will only comment here, rather than participate in drafting the guideline, because I am an identified incompetent. This is my presumably stupid, paranoid, and arrogant comment:
  • Whether or not to report a misattribution should depend on whether the error is widespread and repeated in sources that are otherwise considered reliable.
  • If Wikiquote is the first to identify such a misattribution and verifiably cite a prior source that reliably proves the error, then it should report the fact and take pride in doing so.
In general, Wikipedia-like "notability" criteria should not be used to remove individual quotes. It is but one of several criteria of quotability to be weighed with other factors. Most of the crud recently removed from a much-discussed controversial article merits removal on the basis of those combined factors, especially considering the emphasis appropriate for WQ:QLP. Many quotable quotes that are not individually noted in secondary sources are nonetheless worthy of inclusion. ~ Ningauble 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(Petulant sarcasm retracted, with apologies to the community: my bad.) ~ Ningauble 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe Cirt is concerned with the situation that occurred with Rush Limbaugh, where an anon put false quotes on the person's page which were apparently later picked up and published by what we would consider a "secondary source". We don't know whether the anon who put those quotes there was manufacturing something purely for spite, or whether they had their own incorrect source (they themselves may have first seen the comment attributed to Limbaugh on a blog or in a forum). However, when a quote becomes the topic of discussion in this manner, I think we do have a duty to report that it is a misattribution. BD2412 T 20:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of the context[2] of the particular much-discussed quotes. I stand by the points above, although I might amend the first as "repeated in other sources that are otherwise considered reliable," lest someone presume Wikiquote is a reliable source of attribution.
There is a duty to act on errors when they are identified, but whether to simply remove them or to report them depends on where they are repeated. The cited book looks unreliable on its face: it pointedly discloses that only some unspecified portion of its statements are from a cited source, so it hardly merits any more rebuttal than the ambiguities of a crafty patent-medicine man. Nevertheless, such quotes may indeed merit inclusion as "disputed" if they appear in, and are cited from, sufficiently quoteworthy public discussion or denial. I do not think speculation that the book's author may have been repeating graffiti found here creates any more obligation for Wikiquote than speculation that he found it written on a subway wall would create for the transit authority. The author would be ill advised to claim either one as defense for repeating rumors, were such the case, and we would be ill advised to claim that such was the case.
On my second point above, Cirt's statement may have been broader than intended. I would interpret it literally to prohibit this contribution where I refuted a widespread misattribution by showing that the quote predated the life of the purported author, even though I found no published mention that it was erroneous. Perhaps I was being presumptuous. ~ Ningauble 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This example given by Ningauble (talk · contributions) would seem to be "original research", however it is simply matter-of-fact by the dates chronologically, so I suppose I could be fine with that sort of thing. ;) Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. There is no problem with original research here; indeed, it is preferred, just as we prefer primary sources. Wikipedia has good reasons for its policies, but they are specific to WP's function, and are not relevant to WQ's very different function. 121a0012 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the update is fine, but I also believe there are still some open questions about what we should use instead - some suggestions had been made in VP on how to better divide the page that should be finalized and added to guidelines (not necessarily here, but it is a related topic). ~ UDScott 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Lede
  2. Sourced
  3. Attributed (must also be sourced, but has less sourcing info, perhaps no date given in source, just the quote, and no info on when/where/what capacity/what publication it was said)
  4. About
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links

That is a good structure. :) Cirt (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add Misattributed under Attributed. BD2412 T 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If properly sourced, agreed. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Right now, Benjamin Franklin (by way of example) has separate sections for "misattributed" and "unsourced" quotes. I think all them should simply be listed as misattributed. For example, there's an example of Bill Clinton attributing to Franklin something for which no source in Franklin's writing can be found. This should be deemed misattributed, not unsourced. I think we can safely operate under the presumption that a quote newly attributed to a noted figure who has been dead for two centuries, for which no earlier source can be found, is an error. BD2412 T 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with this comment by BD2412 (talk · contributions). Actually, there are some in the Unsourced sect of Benjamin Franklin that are sourced, just misattributed. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that in order for us to list a quote as "misattributed" we've got to show two things. First, a verifiable source showing that someone has attributed the quote to the purported author (as with Clinton's asserting that this was a Franklin quote), and second, some evidence that the attribution is a mistake (either by reference to the correct author, or by reference to an unsuccessful search for evidence that the purported author made that statement. A quote can not really be called "misattributed" - and should not be included at all - if no one is attributing the quote to the author - as with the quote presently listed as unsourced on the Benjamin Franklin page which states "We do not quit playing because we grow old, we grow old because we quit playing". BD2412 T 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Agreed. :) Cirt (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QOTD suggestion pages

As many of the date pages for QOTD suggestions have become quite long, and have begun to make the "monthly" display of them rather excessive, I intend to begin revising them so that only the previous years selections display on the "QOTD/[month]" pages, with links displayed to the individual ranking/voting/suggestion pages. I have thus far done this only with the date of October 1 as a demonstration of how the new display style would appear in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October, but will await further commentary before proceeding onto other pages. (Some people might need to refresh the page to see the new style.) I might finish up reformatting the October and November pages within a week or so, if there are no other suggestions on the matter. ~ Kalki 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This new format additionally permits a display of the ranking system used near the start of the suggestions on each of the individual pages, something the previous format would have made excessive. ~ Kalki 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Or just archive older pages by year to an archive, as a subpage of each page. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer keeping the existing pages with these slight modifications and not creating new ones, and will probably get to work on doing October today. ~ Kalki 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
All pages for October have now been revised to the new format, and display without the long list of suggestions within each on the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October page. I will probably start updating the pages for November and the other months within the next few days. ~ Kalki 14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Existential questions

Some of you will recall that last year at Meta the question of Wikiquote's continued existence was debated on meta:Wikimedia Forum/On disbanding Wikiquote over the issue of copyrights.
Please note that the existential question has been raised again, this time at the foundation's Strategic Planning project over the purpose and value of Wikiquote and all of Wikipedia's "sister projects", on strategy:Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content. The project's Expanding Content Task Force has been specifically charged with answering the question.
Interested Wikiquotians may wish to offer input to the Strategic Planning project, whether or not they have applied for and been granted membership in the Task Force. ~ Ningauble 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost prefer the time when, despite much less participation and much less software safeguards against vandalism, the most I had to concern myself here was actual vandalization of a few wikis, and not the continual eroding and vandalization of the wiki-process itself.
As with last year's torturously tedious debate prompted by the rather hostile and presumptuous attitude and proposal of a single person, which at the end finally came to a close without a single vote to actually seek the "disbanding" of Wikiquote, despite the evidence of some desire on the part of a few people for such an end, I really don't take this too seriously at this point.
I was about to react with a few words of amused but extreme contempt at the original assertions of the person who prompted last year's debate, as I might to any other troll, when I saw that in some ways more moderate voices were responding to the presumptuous proposal, and with many far more intense and immediately imperative concerns, I decided to stay out of the whole discussion unless I perceived that there was any actual need for me to get involved.
I might actually have some time to get involved in these proposed discussions within the next month or so, but really am appalled at the blooming number of self-glorified discussion-forums that seem to be considered "essential" or "vitally important" by their participants and initiators to everyone else on all Wikimedia projects, because they are presumed to be by these relatively few participants. These areas of the Wikimedia activities seem disproportionally frequented by the most avid lovers of finding new ways of "policy creation" which allow them, or others of very like mind, to assume control over others, and even be placed in positions of authority and command over them. The whole concept of the wiki-processes, as I understand them involves an emphasis on preserving the freest possible collaboration among people, which permits the natural growth, development and mutation of good ideas, with an emergence of their proper influences, and a minimization of presumptive command-control authority-structures to impede that process, but unfortunately these seem to be growing all the time lately, both in numbers and in the presumptions of their authority. ~ Kalki 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You might find your arguments more convincing to other people if you cut out all the random 'emphasis'. I see that there's an intelligent, concerned person there, but others may not be so understanding. 121a0012 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Simple English Wikiquote

Thoughts would be appreciated here. Majorly talk 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment/Vote of confidence on Kalki

Hi,

An investigation by checkusers on several projects as well as two stewards has confirmed that administrator and bureaucrat Kalki (talk · contributions) has created and used in excess of 100 sockpuppets.

This was first noticed in July 2008 as a pattern of unusual account creations on other wikis, that rarely made any edits except to set up a user page, but which often had many edits on Wikiquote. The accounts were investigated by the Wikiquote checkusers at the time including Aphaia, Jeffq and Cato. Jusjih, who was a Wikimedia steward at the time but not yet a local checkuser, was informed and asked for his opinion.

Those three local checkusers determined that the accounts were not used to vote stack, but some of them were used to add images to pages in support of Kalki's position in a controversy at the time over images. A complete list of 2008 sockpuppets on English Wikiquote was circulated among English Wikiquote checkusers. A list of sockpuppet accounts that were created on Wikisource was posted to the checkuser mailing list whose IP addresses matched Kalki and his sockpuppets. Those accounts are given below.

By email, Kalki discussed the issue briefly with the Wikiquote checkusers and was finally warned to stop by Cato, in late July, 2008. In early August, additional checks showed Kalki had stopped using other accounts, but he never made an explicit agreement to stop.

Recently a similar pattern of behavior came to the attention of checkusers on Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons and Wikiversity. These accounts are not used disruptively on these projects but are often created there; usually their only edits are to set up their user pages. The accounts often have more edits on Wikiquote. With help of stewards and other established users who hold checkuser permission on other wikis, Aphaia investigated the newly created socks as well as the unblocked 2008 sockpuppets and concluded Kalki re-started his sock-activities beginning February 2009, if not earlier.

Kalki has been asked by Aphaia and by User:Thatcher (Wikipedia checkuser) for an explanation and to stop it again. Kalki has not responded.

I'd like to invite the English Wikiquote community to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the roles of administrator and bureaucrat through a vote of confidence. The tentative policy says, "Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called." (from WQ:RFA). So I hereby propose a vote of confidence on Kalki and call for support from at least three established users. --Aphaia 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The following is a list of confirmed accounts from this year and last year.

October 2009


July 2008

[edit] responses

As wiki policies permitted the creation of multiple accounts it is a practice I have long engaged in, from the very first days of my involvement with the wiki projects, sometimes merely to make my contributions to various pages a little more amusing and interesting, sometimes with intentions of making some of these names major contributors in different ways, upon different fields of knowledge.

As any thorough investigation would indicate, I have certainly never misused any of my accounts for vandalism, and often used them to counter vandalism without actually intervening as an administrator. I have never sought to have any of them assigned any level of status beyond that of simple "user", despite sometimes having some of these names being asked to consider status as an admin on this and other projects. Last year some of the admins on other wikis seem to have mistaken some of these username creations I was making at the time for those of a vandal, and some of these were blocked, perhaps because I used names that may have been suspiciously similar to some used by known vandals on some other wikis, but I never sought a full reason on some of these blocks on accounts that never engaged in anything but positive contributions to the wikis, or minor preparations for doing such.

I have also certainly never used any of my accounts for vote-stacking, or to deliberately get involved in any controversies as if any of these identities were separate persons commenting on the issues, though I know I have inadvertently got into some of these to minor degrees on the same pages, usually at widely separate times, and not intentionally. If any images were added at any times of the relatively rare periods of minor controversy at the practice of adding images, I believe it was likely inadvertent, as it is a practice I have engaged in regularly since images at the Wikimedia Commons has been available.

My desire to have much, and even eventually most, of my work here done under various pseudonyms, depending upon the subjects worked upon has clearly been mitigated by this act of publication, and for this reason, I am very disappointed that this has occurred, as it prevents me from doing much good in subtle and not immediately obvious ways, but "So it goes..."

As Aphaia stated I "never made an explicit agreement to stop" in my creation of pseudonyms — because this was being demanded of me as if such a demand was necessitated by any official policy, or as if I had actually done anything wrong with any of these accounts, and I certainly had NOT. I desisted from creating new names for a while, including a few I highly desired to acquire and use, sometimes because I use these names elsewhere than Wikimedia projects, but I continue to pursue activities with a great regard for the virtues of humility, courage, honesty and compassion, and the social ideals of Justice and Liberty, as most of my activity on my most active accounts clearly indicates, and there are many reasons, both trivial and profound, for which I have wished to operate under different names in working at various tasks.

This is just a brief response to this posting — I probably will have much more to say on the matter in the days and weeks ahead, and I will probably need to revise and scrap some of my plans for some major contributions on this and other projects, as I deal with this controversy. ~ Kalki 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at least once or twice I have edited pages or even commented upon some issue, inadvertently using a different username than I had actually intended, because I often work from multiple web browsers at the same time, both here and elsewhere, for various reasons, and usually logged in under differing usernames, but such occurrences have been VERY rare. ~ Kalki 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I just edited this and a few other pages using a name I had been keeping largely in reserve, and used only a few times before: Gardener, which I had wanted to keep largely unassociated with my primary name, but that hope is now dashed. One of the earlier commentaries I composed during the period of controversy last year was as Accountability, and there were other commentaries I made with some usernames which became openly associated with that account, including the very long standing name Rumour, under which I had actually attended the Wikimania conferences at Harvard, but I probably won't have time to check on all my own past remarks on the matter of pseudonyms today, and it might take me a week or more simply to assess and sufficiently review past remarks and prepare more current ones. I do remain busy with many things other than internet projects, but I do expect to be available on the computer for much of today, and will probably post a few more comments. Though I make no promises as to immediately or even eventually answering all questions which might arise, I do intend to be rigorously honest in all of my statements. ~ Kalki 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another account I had much wanted to use, as a separate and relatively obscure identity, occasionally spreading minor posts of encouragement and affirmations of the value of all Awareness, Life, and Love, on various pages was Yes. But truly that was one of the intentions in my creation of nearly all these accounts: to do a little good in this world, relatively secretly and quietly, by the sharing of what insights and wisdom have guided me and many others in life, and to avoid generating much attention to myself in doing so, but rather to generate a little greater attention to many of the ideas presented, by some of the names I chose to operate under. ~ Kalki 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A few other of my favorite "in reserve" identities which I had wanted to use extensively, were Awareness which is something I hold we are all manifestations of, to varying degrees (along with Ignorance and Confusion), and the names Harlequin, Random Act of Kindness, and Senseless Act of Beauty, which convey much of such things as I wished to be involved in doing. I am somewhat more irritated at having been revealed to be Moby than with other names, as I very early on got into some rather extensive disputes with a prominent neo-Nazi vandal in that guise, and as MOBY at Wikpedia. Reviewing many of these names and quotes I posted on them, brings back some memories and ideas that I had let rest for quite some time, and I will probably elaborate upon many of these in the next few days and weeks, but I must be leaving soon for about an hour, and will be making another trip soon after that for at least as long, so I won't be here all day, though I do expect to be available for most of it. ~ Hope 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (also known as Kalki)

[edit] Proposal for vote of confidence

Aphaia (talk · contributions) noted above: The tentative policy says, "Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called." (from WQ:RFA). So I will start that process here, below. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Kalki: I acknowledge this is probably necessary now, now that the issue has been raised. I do request that no actual vote begin until I have time to adequately prepare my arguments in defense of my activities, and I expect this will take me at least a few days. I would like at least a week, and the 11th of November would be a date very acceptable to me. I am not currently at home, and am just checking in briefly before going on a few more excursions, between which I might have a few minutes to check in again. I remain very busy with many things, and would like time to consider how much I wish to reveal, or let remain undisclosed, as relate to this matter, and will consider all communications I have had in the past on it as material to draw upon in presenting my arguments, though I might also decline to do so. I usually try to be only as harsh as necessary, and as gentle as possible in my debates with others, but I expect I will eventually be asserting truths that some will find very harsh indeed, in making my arguments. I am disappointed that the issue has been raised in this manner, but accept I must proceed honestly and vigorously in addressing it over the next few days and weeks. ~ Kalki 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. BD2412. We, as a community, need to decide when and to what extent it is appropriate for a user to contribute under multiple accounts, without having previously informed the community of the use of those accounts. I understand that it appears that Kalki wishes to do some work here without receiving credit for it, which is selfless but pointless. Our goal is to build an authoritative collection of quotations, and we are served by transparency in establishing how we came to decide what belongs and how it is to be presented. BD2412 T 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump"