User talk:Allixpeeke

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Allixpeeke, and welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


I thank you for all your recent contributions to pages with various quotes on the themes and principles of Liberty. It is good to see someone else with apparently strong libertarian impulses active here. As a person with great appreciation of many diverse forms of genuinely social, individualist and libertarian impulses, I do not expect to always agree with others with their own peculiar and worthy views on many or any of these things, but I do expect understandings can grow where extreme honesty is permitted and honored, as I believe it will come to be here, and many other places, in time. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Stupidest Statement of the Year[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that at Wikiquote, we do note use reference tags, but instead maintain sources inline following the quote. Please fix this in Stupidest Statement of the Year. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for adding rankings to the QOTD suggestions for August 31, but 4 is an exceptional ranking, and only one ranking of 4 should be used per date, per year, per person, as this signifies an assertion that it "definitely should" be used at that point by the ranker. Otherwise there could easily be as pervasive and perniciously "over-ranking bias" over many years for some particular quotes, as there already are for some quotes in their strong "under-rankings" below the norms of most participants. ~ Kalki·· 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) + tweak

Thanks, Kalki, for the recommendation.  I have tweaked my rankings.  Best regards, Allixpeeke (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ralph, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you, Alixpeeke, for your helpful redirects. :)

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose[edit]

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not I.  :)  Allixpeeke (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


You can change your automatic signature (to start with lower-case "a") in your preferences, if you like. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Testing allixpeeke (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Music categories[edit]

Not that I want to discourage the work you are doing, but I wonder if all of these quite specific categories are necessary. I for one would not really be sure which to add to pages for musicians or bands in many cases. And are there enough pages to make such narrow categories necessary? Generally, when I consider adding a more narrow subcategory under a broader category, I only do so if there is a decent number of pages that will fit that subcategory (think double digits usually). Again, I appreciate your work - and I think it was necessary to go beyond just 'Rock' for example as a category for these bands, but I can't help but wonder if maybe you've gone a bit far when you've gotten to a subcategory like 'Screamo' which is 4 layers down into 'Punk rock' and as yet only contains one page. It's not that the categorization is wrong - I am sure it is correct - but whether it is needed. This seems to be overkill to me. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concerns.  I guess I'm looking at this work as anticipation for more band quotes in the future, laying the groundwork, so to speak.  I've been relying heavily on Wikipedia to tell me which genres each band works in, and which subgenres belong where.  My counter-concern is that "heavy metal" or "punk" or "progressive rock" may be too vague, and this vagueness may lead to some bands being labelled in a manner which may be misleading to readers.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
To me, the question is not whether it is "needed" or not, but whether it might possibly be useful, and, then, if so, if it might cause harm. I'm not seeing harm. Allixpeeke, it looks like you are simply using Wikipedia Categories, which is simple, and shouldn't be controversial, as long as they are stable. Wikipedia has Alternative rock songs/Emo songs/Screamo songs and there are about 163 pages in the Screamo songs category and subcategories. While there only may be one page here, those 163 pages represent, apparently, bands or songs notable enough for Wikipedia. Thus quotes might be notable enough for Wikiquote.
Category:Screamo here has one page, yes, Thursday (band). Our categories include Emo, Post-hardcore, and Screamo. So if Alixpeek is working on that page, and checks Wikipedia, she could reasonably add our related categories, all at once, and with some level of assurance that this is correct. If she is to refrain from that, she needs to do more work, actually, especially if we look long-term. I.e, if other Screamo band pages are later created, it would then become appropriate to go back and add the category.
There is another issue. Looking at w:Emo and w:Screamo, while Screamo is a subgenre of Emo, it also has very distinct characteristics. Efficiency suggests that if it's accurate, add it now. Make sure that categories are themselves categorized. I would not have Category:Emo be on the Thursday page at all, Screamo would be the category, and Screamo would be categorized in Emo, along with other bands' quotations. So anyone looking for Emo would find any Screamo page. But if it just Emo, someone looking for Emo could be confused if a Screamo band is classified there.
So if you want to do this, Alixpeek, I'd encourage it. What do you think, Scott? --Abd (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists w:Thursday (band) as both emo and screamo, so I figured it would make sense for Wikiquote to likewise list Thursday (band) as both.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In the end, I don't really have an objection - if the multitude of very specific subcategories is properly used. My thoughts turned more to maintenance of it going forward. My experience in other areas of the site is that unless the person who sets up the specific subcategories maintains a strong interest in seeing that they are properly used, we often end up with redundant categories or pages being miscategorized, leading to a lot of cleanup work. Having said that, I am certainly not against being as specific as necessary in categorizing pages. Should more pages be created for musicians or bands that swell the ranks of these subcategories, I would welcome their addition. I just wondered if (should this not occur) we would be left with a host of subcategories with minimal entries and whether or not such a massive effort were worth it in the end. For now, I will certainly not stand in anyone's way who wishes to undertake this - I just hope that this hierarchy of types of music (which is already many levels deep) is actually used, and to the fullest. Sorry for being so cynical regarding this (it is borne out seeing such situations not bear fruit in the past) - I hope I am wrong in this case. Oh, and I second the thought of not including parent categories on pages - I would keep the lowest level category and not have any parent categories on the pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There's definitely plenty of work to be done.  I'm also hoping that, once the rest of these bands get categorised, it will help to fill in the gaps somewhat.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


Your creation of Frances Bean Cobain (with her quote about Friday the 13th) inspired me to create Friday the 13th. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, that's excellent!  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Re. [1], bear in mind [2]. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Slavery does not benefit any economy.  Slavery's defendants were probably too ignorant of economics and praxeology to realise this, but they were holding their own economy back by defending that execrable institution.  There was Jeffersonian proposition put forward in the early days of the republic to have slavery abolished by 1800; had they been wise, they would not have resisted this change.  Alas, given that they didn't, it's no surprise that there was so much more economic growth in the Northern states.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)