User talk:Cirt/Archive 2

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your welcome message on my talk page

Thanks! --Edcolins 07:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


[1]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day

Hello Cirt. As a provisional quick fix, I have undone some of your changes relating to the Quote of the Day. Please see discussion at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day. ~ Ningauble 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote interlanguage communication

Hi, I'm Nemo from the Italian language Wikiquote and I'm writing you (via a bot) because you're an administrator of Wikiquote in this language; please excuse me if you've received this message more than once.
The simple thing that I want you to know is that Wikiquote has an official mailing list, Wikiquote-l, which can be used to communicate and discuss matters which interest all Wikiquotes. This mailing list was last "advertised" about three or four years ago, before many of us joined Wikiquote, and is currently almost not participated at all by Wikiquote users and very low-traffic. I ask you to subscribe, to participate in discussions and to write about your Wikiquote.
I love Wikiquote, as you probably do, and I think that we should be proud of what we do here, share our experiences and good practices to make Wikiquote better and raise awareness of it.
I remind you that Meta-Wiki is the best place for Wikimedia projects coordination, and it contains several pages about Wikiquote, and specifically this talk page which can be used to discuss about Wikiquote if you don't like mailing lists.
I hope that this message has been useful for you. Cheers, Nemo (write me) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Excellent beginning for the article on Gabrielle Giffords. Very good work. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, as the event appears to have noticeable political impact, what do you think of an article about the 2011 Tucson shooting? I am asking out of an overabundance of caution as I am still getting accustomed to the different notability thresholds here. KimChee 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Herla (talk · contributions) block 2011·05·21

I continue to sincerely contend that your past and continued presumptive blocking of my other accounts here, and defacing their user pages as "abuse of multiple accounts", as well as moves to block and deface even the pages of my primary accounts elsewhere, thus preventing me from even doing quite simple and beneficial edits is an extreme misuse and abuse of your privileges as an administrator and as a human being. I do forgive you as an obviously very ignorant and confused person, but it is becoming a bit more than an irritation to me, and might soon warrant a far more extensive analysis and exposition of the obsessively insulting and destructive behavior you have sometimes obviously engaged in on a massive scale. I do hope to be able to help pardon you from some of the worst potential consequences of such activity, but there are always limits to what we can do for the benefit of other people, and I won't go so far to protect you from such humiliations and shame as you probably have often deserved, if it actually involves permitting harm to occur to far more innocent and admirable people — as some of your actions have already to some extent done, in my honest opinion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, I wish you were able to communicate with other human beings, without simultaneously spewing forth attacks and vitriol at them. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I can repeat the same assertion, on my part, in regards to you, and what genuinely seems to me to be your immense and apparently often oblivious hypocrisy. In coming months I do intend to clearly and gradually expand upon MANY of my past reasons for some of my past behavior and comments, or lack of them, and make many of the meanings of them far more clear to those who are so presumptive as to believe they known enough to judge others, and seek to overreach in what they can properly do to constrain and control the rights of other human beings. I sincerely DO wish you well, but because of this I will assert to you that just because you are someone who seems to be very skilled at disguising or denying your own capacities for vitriolic harshness and what I sincerely consider your deceitful and mind-poisoining behavior, does not mean that it goes entirely unnoticed. I have never called for you to be stripped of any of your privileges, despite what I consider your extreme misuse of them at times, and I continue to abide by that — I "attack" you with nothing more than presentation of my honest and sincere opinions — and "threaten" you with nothing more than a continued devotion to speaking with candor and sincerity in times of contention. For some years now I have been threatened, insulted and severely constrained and punished by people who presumed they had the right and duty to judge me and condemn me in ways that I contend were NOT clearly warranted, and in at least a few cases I believe actually clearly and greatly exceeded their actual duties and rights or what I consider to be basic human decency. We are adversaries on some matters, and will probably continue to be for some time yet — yet I have faced adversaries before, whom when they learned a bit more of my skills, abilities and what actually was motivating me to act in vigorous opposition to their will, recognized they had erred in far more ways than they could have ever anticipated, and became allies and even to some extent friends. I hope that can eventually be the case here, as unlikely as that seems at this time. There are other things of far greater concern to me than clarifying many of my motives and discernments to you — and I expect many of the most crucial ones shall become more evident in the months and years to come. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop posting to my talk page, now. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412‎

Greetings. My RFB and my CU application are two separate processes, since it quite possible that they may have different outcomes. If you intend to oppose my CU request, please vote to do so at Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412‎. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to self - LGBT featured stuff

-- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


The other day when I was editing Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo, I had an issue decided what external link was appropriate. At the time the external link that I had there was to their official website but this website is mostly used to sell clothing for their dancewear line called "nappytabs" so I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. Before coming here I went to Wikiquote:External links but that has little guidance since it's a work in progress. The guide on people pages wasn't helpful either. Nappytabs has no other website, just other social networking pages. So what I did was put a link to their YouTube channel instead. Is that okay? I was thinking of putting a link to IMDb but they have separate IMDb pages which is odd because they always (literally) work together. Please advise. // Gbern3 (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest further discussion at WQ:VP. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello. Per the issue I mentioned to you on EnWp, can you remove the autoblock for User:AvicBot? Thanks. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 12:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User HoustonBuddie

Is this description right? The Abbott spammers and the Appel spammers do seem to be "kindred spirits" of a sort, but I had no idea they were actually related. ~ Ningauble 14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are all socks of TRATTOOO. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ma Anand Sheela

Ma Anand Sheela has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ma Anand Sheela. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox templates

I have listed some templates, which you ported here from Wikipedia, at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussions, please comment at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox criminal, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox civilian attack, and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox. (The last of these, a general infobox framework, includes several auxiliary templates.) Thank you. ~ Ningauble 20:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I'll respectfully defer to community consensus on these. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Thank you

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to self: Praise of my work on this project by others

diff, diff = admin BD2412. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


I'm having problems getting a girlfriend. Can you give me an inspirational qutote? I'm sad and wanting love :( Hi I'm Stan 03:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent conduct.

You appear to have a vendetta against Kalki. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has that impression. In the past few days, you have been incessant about both pointing out Kalki's misbehavior, and objecting to conduct on Kalki's part which violates none of our extant policies, to the point of being annoying. In particular, you have jumped to declaring consensus on issues, or criticized Kalki for acting against consensus, where in fact nothing that we would recognize as a consensus has had time to develop. You have misinterpreted what other admins have said to support your view of consensus.

If you see a quote or image on a page that you think should not be there, unless it is blatant vandalism like pornography or slander, just begin a discussion on the talk page providing an argument as to why it should not be there. Wikiquote is a legacy project; we're building something that is intended to be around perpetually into the future. We will survive just fine if a quote or an image that we don't care for sits on a page for a week while the question of its propriety is being discussed. We will survive just as well if a useful policy is not enacted and implemented for a few weeks while we hash it out. In the meantime, keep calm and carry on.

With respect to Kalki's comments and edit summaries, your fellow admins are not impaired. We can see what Kalki is saying and doing without it being pointed out in every instance. You may have noticed that I have blocked Kalki for 48 hours in response to his continued (if somewhat muted) incivility. That should be the end of the matter. I respectfully request that you try to find things to do on this project that do NOT involve confrontations with Kalki. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412, I agree with your assessment of the situation, I've read this over carefully and will do my best to implement your advice. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And, to that end, I have given even more notice of Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your attentiveness to my comments. I hope that my criticism is taken as constructive. As you know, I think you do fine work here. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice re discussion of Image use policy

Please see Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi! Could you be so kind and unblock my bot? Request is already filled for a long time, issues regarding e-mail are fixed. Hugo.arg 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Donkey punch

I am preparing to close the deletion discussion on this page; there is clear consensus to delete. However, if you prefer, I am willing to userfy the page to your user space, or merge the edit history into that of Sexual slang (the latter of which could use a broader range of quotes, by the way, particularly on the tendency of people to come up with all manner of euphemisms for all manner of sexual acts). Let me know if you have a preference on this matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Created new category, Freedom of speech

Created new category, for Freedom of speech. This is in conjunction with crosswiki sister project coordination at Commons:Category:Freedom of speech. Please feel free to help populate it, that'd be most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

I didn't realize we had a page on this case! Very good job. Since you are interested in freedom of speech as an issue, I would highly recommend you get a copy of Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment, by Anthony Lewis. It is a very readable and engaging book on the history of the case and the freedoms involved as a whole, definitely an excellent source of quotes on the topic generally and this case specifically. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Franken

Cirt, I see that you have questioned my expansion of the intro to this page - let me first say that I usually prefer shorter intros myself. But in this case, to not include information about Franken's past - where he had a much greater level of fame and notability - seems a bit foolish. I am sure there are some who only know him from his past and may not even be aware that he is now a member of Congress. In any case, my version is still shorter than a prior longer intro, yet longer than just the one you preferred. I wasn't trying to jump into the middle of other ongoing arguments on the page, I just felt that leaving out this information was wrong. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

About images...

Very glad to help out. The whole situation has gone completely out of control, and I suppose the only way to fix it is to have a clear policy that, if violated, can lead to serious consequences. Right now, this situation makes WQ look far less serious than it is, and it's very good to see that it may be fixed. Macspaunday (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just got back to find the discussion well under way. I'm not familiar enough with WQ internal procedures to judge how best to encourage a decision, but I'll try to come up with something that may be useful. Macspaunday (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And an ignorant question: at the public discussion, you mentioned "OTRS" - that abbreviation is new to me and I can't guess what it means. I'd be very grateful for illumination about it! Macspaunday (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Got it - thank you! Macspaunday (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


I have updated this filter to a more specific regex, and it is my recommendation that the filter be upgraded to issue a warning, as from my trials at enWS it seems to be effective against the account creation progressing. sDrewth 13:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, by all means, feel free to do that please! And thanks very much for your help! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 31 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. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion on my talk page. I've done exactly what you suggested. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The consensus seems to have been that he was being misanthropic about people in general, not about specific editors. I have my own opinion, but it's not something that ought to be argued about. You might want to look at the most recent exchange I started at the page about image policy; no one seems to disagree that opinion about interpretive images is clearly divided, with the numbers being: (everyone minus 1) on one side of the question and (1) on the other side. Ningauble wrote that he is going to propose some specific language, which is excellent news. - Macspaunday (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not say that he was doing so,[2] I only meant that that it gives the appearance of being nonspecific and it may be less actionable depending on context. I am willing to give this one a pass, but I am running out of patience with these obnoxious, thinly veiled blanket denunciations of, well, everybody knows whom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There have been many times he has been "given a pass", so to speak. The patience is perhaps too much so. However, it's nice to know that it may run out, at some point in the future, and is not infinite. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks + query

Thanks for your welcome.

I wondering if it would be OK to remove some of the quotes on the Sophocles page which don't have line numbers, because it's difficult to verify them, as they're very short. I'd replace them if and when I found them going through the text, with the line numbers. Again, thanks. --Tryst (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page

Again, thanks for responding so quickly to my request. What are the basic requirements for being a sysop here ? Just that I've had a couple of times when having the tools would be useful - I'm probably not experienced enough yet. --Tryst (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll get more active in the community side of things. ~1000 edits enough to be considered experienced ? --Tryst (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Created new page on documentary film = We Are Legion

I've created a new page on the documentary film = We Are Legion.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim Gaffigan Quotes Compaints

I agree with your point on quotes from him. I added some quotes from King Baby to a section. After reading Mitch Hedberg quotes, and getting bored, I tried Jim Gaffigan and found none.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful additions! -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Another question...

Why did you add Category:Internet to both OT VIII and Xenu? I don't get the connection. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, see history described a little bit at Scientology vs. the Internet. There've been tremendous battles by the Scientology organization that failed, where they attempted for decades to get that material removed from the Internet. See for example this quote by Hugh Urban: "In this case, elsewhere, the church's war on the Internet appears to have backfired, and its attempts to staunch the flow of confidential material online have only accelerated their global dissemination." Urban. The Church of Scientology. 2011. pp. 186-188. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This strikes me as over-categorization. There are a great number of people and organizations that have had issues play out on the internet, and notably so, but I don't think they belong in Category:Internet any more than everyone who has struggled with the press belongs in Category:Journalism. The media of the time are just the air we breathe, the arena where all matters public are played out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
PS:  Speaking of Hubbardism in the media, you might find this historical note interesting or amusing (includes primary source images). ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done! Removed the category, thanks for the input! I don't have time at the moment, gotta get ready to leave to go out soon, but will try to find time later to read over that resource, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Spambots over en.wikiquote

Dear Cirt. I've arrived here from other projects while reverting spambot edits in my steward capacity. Please block the accounts:

  1. 25asif786 (talk · contributions)
  2. Goodspeedamanda (talk · contributions)
  3. Alexanderspear1232 (talk · contributions)
  4. Leegmoser (talk · contributions)
  5. Ronald achoo (talk · contributions)
  6. Harryjones1 (talk · contributions)
  7. Kendall Coleman (talk · contributions)

Spambot/sockpuppets all of them. I've tagged also few pages for deletion. I also suggest a CU. Thanks. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


Cirt, I'm a little confused on your two new nominations (Derek Jeter and John Mazur). My understanding of the situation was that these pages should not be deleted just yet because the 7-day prod period had not yet expired. The prod tags were restored, so after the period had actually expired, they could be deleted. Only if someone objected (either on their talk pages or by removing the tags) would I have expected that they make their way to the VFD process. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note on my admin actions

When asked to do so, I will gladly self-revert any admin action I've previously made, pending polite discussion about the issue. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I invite all those interested to help me expand the page Freedom of speech. I've recently cleaned it up and re-ordered the quotes in chronological order. :) It's an extremely important topic to have a resource on for reference here on the Internet. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to put these quotes in chronological order. Most people searching for quotes will have a better idea of who said them then when, exactly, they were said, which is why I prefer them to be ordered by author. BD2412 T 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
/me smacks head on table. The very reason I arranged it in chronological order was directly due to a prior complaint raised by Ningauble (talk · contributions), diff. I'd rather keep it as chronological order, it makes it extremely easy to sort the quotes and add new ones going forward, please. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Chronological order also helps the reader show how ideas about Freedom of speech have evolved, over time. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: See also Talk:Freedom_of_speech#Reasons_for_using_chronological_order. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Derek Abbott

Please do not use the {{Prod}} process for articles that have already been discussed at Votes for deletion. The Wikiquote:Proposed deletion policy is very clear about this. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay sure, will use VFD instead, thanks for the notice. And thanks for being so polite in the manner in which you imparted it to me! I really appreciate that! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi proverbs

Punjabi proverbs on its page have been presented in the same way like many other proverbs on their pages. The proverbs have been presented in its two scripts: Persian/Punjabi and Gurmukhi, translated and explained in simple english, references are also given (although mostly proverbs are not in written form). The threat of deletion is simply inappropriate. There may be a room of improvement but ground for deletion is not there. --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's also no context given. -- Cirt (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

disparaging remarks at User talk:Leucosticte

Kindly refrain from spreading disparaging remarks about me, as you did at User talk:Leucosticte. As indicated in my reply there, this was not a case of negligence.

Upon careful consideration I decided that deletion might not be uncontroversial, as required by policy for using a {{Prod}}. My assessment that deletion might very likely be contested was confirmed when you contested it yourself, less than two hours after nomination at VfD. This was not a case of negligence, it was a case of diligent adherence to the policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Ningauble, you failed to even try to raise the matter with this user first, or on the article's talk page, before going straight to VFD. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you denying that you wrote "someone attempted to nominate it ... neglecting even the WQ:PROD process"? [emphasis added] If someone else is using your login to post disparaging remarks then you should change your password. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote that. You neglected to first talk with the user. You neglected to first raise any issues on the talk page of the quote page you were complaining about. You neglected to prod it first, and let the user know you were going to do so. You went straight to VFD, with zero prior discussion. That is fact. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I struck out the word "neglect" at that user's talk page, diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It has, of course, not escaped my notice that you replaced the allegation of passive neglect with a stronger allegation of not acting in good faith. I am not going to respond to you about this directly, but I would be willing to have the propriety of the nomination reviewed at WQ:AN by uninvolved administrators if you think that would be appropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki = improved page at VFD

Hi thanks for your message

HI, tahnx for your msg. Could anyone of you in en.wikipedia help to find some reasonable finns to edit finnish wikiquote: -wikisitaatit? some finnish wiki-staff removes huge amounts of valid new editions made by other people?


N3tt3nw3bb3w (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality improvement - page Liam Hemsworth - at VFD

Improved page whilst at VFD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes on Wickedictionary

Deleted on en.wikipedia as non-notable, link. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Would you mind reconsidering your block of EdwardsBot? It is a useful global tool for the WMF community, including staff, to enable messages to be delivered. It only operates in project and user talk namespaces, and there is more detail at m:User:EdwardsBot and w:User:EdwardsBot sDrewth 11:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to Wikiquote = cleanup = Freedom of speech

See other related past quality improvement projects listed at User:Cirt/Contributions. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your work on the MediaWiki article. As I recently posted to Facebook, "Just when I thought there couldn't be a more amorphous idea than Wikipedia's conception of 'notability,' Wikiquote came up with 'quotability.'" You might also find this article interesting. Leucosticte (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for fixing the vandalism on my talk page.--Collingwood (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer Back

No pressure or anything, but please don't forget my request; it's important. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this astute comment by admin Ningauble. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. Do I need to repeat it again on the Administrators' noticeboard,‎ or are you going to stop being evasive? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you disagree with this astute comment by admin Ningauble? -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
No, but it is not an answer to my question. Cirt, you are an administrator here, you can't just do whatever you feel like doing. You have to follow policy. Now please cite the policy that says you are allowed to block users who have made no malicious edits at all, on projects independent of Wikipedia. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
@Daniel:  Cirt has already written at AN and here that he agrees with my statement that "No, there is no official policy,... However...." If you want to rebut Cirt's position (or mine) at AN, that is fine. If you want to make a point about lack of specific policy provisions, that is fine. (A lot of our policies are not very specific, and people may disagree about whether that is fine.) However, nobody is under any obligation to answer rhetorical questions, and hounding Cirt for an answer is not the best way to make your case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I made one question. It's not my fault that Cirt keeps refusing to answer it (as you may have noticed, he went to GREAT lengths just to keep evading it). Administrators have the power to block users, but they also have responsibilities. One would think that they should be prepared to justify their actions when questioned. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Ningauble, for this above comment which clarifies my position on this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Cirt, you are too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking "sock puppets" here. Stop that. Ask another administrator to do it for you, if you must, but do not do it yourself. I have no trust in your judgement whatsoever. You have abused your admin tools and status here far too many times to my liking as it is. If you continue to disregard and break Wikiquote policies, you need to be blocked. plain and simple. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In this matter I'll continue to seek out and consult with other admins, and defer to their judgment as well, as in this case with admin Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That is pure and absolute bull. You only decided to "seek out and consult with other admins" after taking action (against Wikiquote policy).
Now, could you stop bringing up that disgraceful sock-puppetry case, initiated by yourself? You already know the result of the investigation, so it is extremely insulting of you to keep citing baseless statements made against me, especially knowing, as you do, that Kalki is not (and could never be) me, as he is not Portuguese (and probably doesn't even know the basics of Portuguese). Besides, what's the use of that investigation (that came back negative) if you can just ignore its results and keep mentioning that case to covertly attack me? It is a pity that no admin here is willing to block you, because you sure as hell deserve it. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I sought out the advice of a second (2nd) administrator in this case, in addition to Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. I agree with the advice by Ningauble (talk · contributions), as noted, above. I also sought out the advice of admin BD2412 (talk · contributions). This admin responded here with edit summary: "This does not seem to rise to the level of requiring administrator intervention.", and I will try my best to follow that wise advice. This admin gave me the advice of, "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". I will strive to take a period of time of reflection and follow this input by BD2412. -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Next project, to improve quote page

Next project, to improve quote page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible image to use

File:Freedom of Thought Ben Franklin.jpg

Possible image to use. -- Cirt (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Case citations.

First, I would like to commend the excellent work you've done on the Freedom of speech article. However, being an attorney, I would like to see the quotes from cases cited in the proper case citation formats. See United States Constitution#Judicial interpretations and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.#Judicial opinions for some examples. Cases that are reported in the United States are published in books called case reporters. The location of a quote in a case can be pinpointed very exactly by citing to the case in the reporter, and then pinpointing the location within the case. For example, in United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399 (1930), the name of the case is United States v. Wurzbach, the reported number is "280 U.S." (which is the 280th volume of cases to be decided by the United States Supreme Court), the case begins on page 396 of the reporter (so a person looking up the case in Westlaw or Lexis or a similar database would search for "280 U.S. 396"), and the pinpoint cite is 399. Of course, the year is 1930. Usually, if the opinion is a dissent or a concurrence, the term "dissenting" or "concurring" would follow the year. Pinpoint cites should not be hard to find, since any legal scholar or judicial opinion repeating the quote will use the pinpoint cite. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliment on the Freedom of speech article! I really appreciate your advice about case cites, perhaps is there a template we can use from Wikipedia, to make formatting easy to to do this in future? -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a formatting template, but the format is pretty straightforward once you get used to it. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I know there is at least one formatting template on Wikipedia, and perhaps one or two on Wikisource. I'll do some more research on this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I always use wikipedia:Template:Cite court, but it doesn't seem to have been imported here. It should be, unless there's a substitute for it. For Supreme Court cases, there's wikipedia:Template:Ussc. Actually there is a host of such templates over at Wikipedia for citing statutes and whatnot. Leucosticte (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, those will be great! -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

New page created = Lawrence Wright

New page created = Lawrence Wright. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I greatly appreciate the welcome notice you left on my talk page on 19 November. :-) --Collingwood (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL, must've been meant for another user. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

New page created

New page created, Chargemaster. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock my bot

I have waiting until someone has any objections with my bot. And after a year still no one has filed objection. This discussion periode is closed so please remove the block of user:CarsracBot. Please follow the rules of this community. Carsrac (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to another admin removing the block, but there is so far zero Support for the bot at the community discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


User:Diogotome has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Diogotome. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. -- Cirt (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please delete User:Daniel Tomé

Cirt, when you return from your break I would like you to delete User:Daniel Tomé. It is, at the very least, bad policy to deem a renamed account to be a sockpuppet of the account to which it was renamed. The single edit made from this account amounts to no bases for having a page about it at all. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BD2412. I would thank Cirt if he could delete it. The single edit you mention was just a "oops" when logging in. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
@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)

labeling good faith edits as vandalism

Regarding your recent post at User talk:King jakob c 2: that was not vandalism, it was an editorial judgment explained both in the edit summary and concurrently on the talk page. It is a judgment which everyone who has commented on the talk page agrees about except you. Please reconsider whether it is appropriate for a Wikiquote administrator to be so loose with the term "vandalism". ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit page blanked an entire subsection from the quote page, leaving precisely zero quotes in the section. Removing an entire subsection is disruptive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New page created = Fuck (film)

New page created = Fuck (film). -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New page created = Pricasso

New page created = Pricasso. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Update, my reply to BD2412

Originally posted on another page: diff.

This is my reply to comment by BD2412.

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) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New page created = Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New page created = Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, a Featured Article quality page on English Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 26 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) 19:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Cirt, could you comment here. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't actually. No need to get drawn into this situation. I'll handle it from here. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mdd (talk · contributions) for the notification, however I will choose to abide by the advice from BD2412 (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No thanks, I do hope next time you honor the promise you made here. It might have slipped your mind this time. -- Mdd (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) / 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Per above, I will respectfully defer to the judgment of BD2412 (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

discussion of "Further reading" sections

You are mentioned in a discussion of "Further reading" sections at the Village Pump, because you have commented on the matter elsewhere and have created several articles with these sections. Your insights or opinions are welcome in that centralized discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for the notification. -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments at the above linked Village Pump thread

  • Comment: I clearly see the will of the community as expressed above is against the Further reading section on pages on Wikiquote. I will go about removing them voluntarily from the above pages, myself. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svgY Done, I've removed the sects in question from the above named pages. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments at recent AN thread related to myself and Ningauble

Comment: Thank you all for the above comments. I realize upon further reflection that my comments were inappropriate. I shall take greater care in the future to not comment in such style in subsequent discussions. I wish you all well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Update on "Further reading" sects

  1. I did a search of "Further reading" on any remaining pages on Wikiquote.
  2. I removed those sects, with a note to the community consensus at Wikiquote:Village Pump.
  3. I then made a note of this on the talk pages of those respective entries.
  4. Hopefully this is satisfactory.

Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition to "What Wikiquote is not"

Yes check.svgY Done, I've added the wording from comments in the thread at Wikiquote:Village Pump by User:Nick1372, with the modifications from User:BD2412, to Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, please see DIFF. Feel free to tweak the wording further. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Looking forward to contributing! If there's anything that needs some work, feel free to give me a holler. Looks like the Wild West out here compared to Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey Cirt, what are you up to these days? I have a major project in the pipeline, and could use some help. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

These days my wiki time is spent across multiple projects mainly all having to do with the generalist subject of freedom of speech. Most recently the article I created from scratch, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, was the Featured Article on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Does your project have to do with freedom of speech ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:New pages

Template:New pages is in chronological order -- with newest entries on top and oldest entries on bottom.

Please do not change it to alphabetical order -- as that ruins the process.

Thank you!

-- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. You might consider a "the following in choronological order" or "the above is in choronological order" tag to clarify this to readers as well as discourage future attempts by ignorant editors like myself who are too lazy familiarize themselves with the template.

ELApro (talk)

Yes check.svgY Done, please see diff. Thank you for the helpful suggestion, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


I already left this message before. Can you or another admin please protect my talk page. It is being met with vandalism again and I don't want to consistently revert the gibberish.

Additionally, please protect or semi-protect the following articles as they are being met with vandalism once again:

I would suggest heavy protection. I reverted them to before the vandalism began, but I would highly recommend that they be protected from all new users as most of the vandalism is being done by the same sockpuppets from prior. Reverting the edits only triggers more activity from this sockpuppeteer. I would suggest a checkuser again for all the most recent accounts that have vandalised these articles and my talk page as they are all likely one and the same. Please notify me when the protection has been made. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Additionally, I have found that the English wikiquote is suffering severely (especially in the past 6 months). Oddly enough, the upsurge of this inadequate behavior is a result of having less administrative rights being properly executed. I was a heavy contributor in the past (approximately 2 years ago). But I am no longer compelled to continue as such due to the recent upsurge of vandalism and general overflow of sockpuppets. I believe this is due to the lack of admins as well as the lack of proper article following. I myself propose that you forward my message for obtaining admin-ship as well as reconsider Kalki as an administrator. I don't know what happened with that user in particular, but he was a great contributor; I seem to recall working well alongside him in the past. I myself wouldn't participate in additional edits though unless I were made administrator due to my inability to protect or semi-protect articles. I am currently an administrator on numerous wikia projects. Wikiquote is one of my favorites, but it is a failing resource due to the inactivity of proper users and the upsurge of vandals. That is why I am proposing for admin-ship; because I don't enjoy seeing this kind of behavior. - Zarbon (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Zarbon, but please notify WQ:AN instead of here, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Block this User

Please Block this user User:YODO (You Only Die Once) this user keeps reverting my edits and reverting other edits such as NCIS: Los Angeles [3] See difference and keeps saying it could be possibly copyright vandalism obviously not Miszatomic (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Miszatomic, but please notify WQ:AN instead of here, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cirt, this discussion might be of interest. -- Mdd (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved some quotes to talk page from Talk:Scientology

Moved some quotes to talk page from Talk:Scientology, for archival purposes:

  • The first connection between New Age and business life started with the founding of Erhard Seminar Training (EST) in the US, California in 1971. In 1984 EST became known as Forum and nowadays it operates under the name Landmark. The founder of EST, a former member of the Scientology church called Werner Erhard, based the program on a combination of Zen meditation, gestalt therapy, psychosynthesis and management, but the main goal was self-spirituality. In the seminars people were trained to 'drop their former beliefs and go beyond their 'ego-operations', in order to get in touch with their deeper selves.
    • Aupers, Stef (2005). "'We Are All Gods': New Age in the Netherlands 1960-2000". in Sengers, Erik. The Dutch and Their Gods: Secularization and Transformation of Religion in the Netherlands. Studies in Dutch Religious History. 3. Hilversum: Verloren. p. 193. ISBN 9065508678. 
  • Est (Erhard Seminars Training) has been a singularly successful synthetic derivation, which has itself gone on to generate new movements, transmitting aspects of Scientology thought or practice far from the domain of L. Ron Hubbard.
  • Rupert (1992) discusses a range of cases where religious or philosophical ideas have been used to underpin business training seminars, including both movements which fall under the 'New Age' umbrella and the so-called 'self religions' such as the human potential movement, est, or Scientology.
    • Peter Bernard Clarke (2000). Japanese New Religions: In Global Perspective. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 978-0700711857. 
  • L. Ron Hubbard repackaged Scientology from occultism, and est/Forum was a repackaging of Scientology by Werner Erhard, but few Scientologists or estians ever see the connections, and both leaders seem to have gained little from their teachings. This is what the followers of Erhard found so unsettling; he was the great pop artist of spirituality, yet was unable to apply his insights to himself.
    • Oakes, Len (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0815627009. 
  • Werner Erhard's highly successful est cult is partly derived from Scientology. Erhard had some experience with Scientology in 1969. Then he worked for a while in Mind Dynamics, itself an offshoot of Jose Silva's Mind Control.
    • Rodney Stark (1985). Religious movements: Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. Paragon House Publishers. p. 167. ISBN 0913757438. 

Moved above quotes to talk page, per MLKLewis (talk · contributions) complaints. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved some quotes to talk page from Talk:Scientology, for archival purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote of the day

Have you noticed that your comment on this subject seems to have had an effect? In recent days, the quote of the day has been illustrated mostly by pictures of the authors, instead of Hoag's Object, lights seen through fog, hands reaching to the sky, etc. And the quotations themselves seem to be designed to make clear to benighted people of limited imagination that they need to learn about idealism and justice and freedom before they can understand that galaxies, rainbows, and heart-shaped stones are (to the properly instructed mind) sources of wisdom and enlightenment. - Macspaunday (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Macspaunday, I was noticing clear consensus from the community at the Village Pump discussions in multiple threads over time on this, so I was removing some superfluous images. For example, here, making the pages much more focused on quotes, instead of images which seem to be the artistic expression of the quote page layout individual, and not necessarily directly relevant to the quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Trimming of images in Quote of the Day pages

Cirt, I realize that there has been much discussion regarding the overuse of images on these pages, but I disagree that a consensus has been reached such that you should be trimming each page down to only 2 images. From what I have read in the discussions, the consensus is much closer to allowing 4 images, as was done on the recent pages. I agree that there have certainly been examples of excess, but I'm just not sure that stripping the pages down to just 2 images has yet reached a stage of consensus. Personally, I don;t have a problem with 4, as long as they do have a direct relationship to the quote and are not so large as to dwarf its presentation on the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Community consensus is most certainly against such image usage. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The community is against such image overusage and the burden should be why they should be used, not the other way around. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The point is that yes there is consensus that there has been overuse of images, but there is not consensus that a hard limit of 2 images is the rule. I reverted a couple of the pages that did not seem excessive in their use of images. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
UDScott, I hope you do not want to violate and ignore Wikiquote:Image use policy and Wikiquote:NPOV? -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not wish to violate these policies, but as I wrote elsewhere, I fail to see the connection between my comment about your imposition of a hard limit of 2 images for the Quote of huge Day pages and these policies (which are more about the choice of which images are shown). ~ UDScott (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not make a hard limit. And you are disregarding the views of multiple members of our community, in favor of letting one (1) user dictate what he wishes to be on the Main Page. You inappropriately frame this issue to be about me, UDScott. It is not. My view is supported by many others at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My recent comments on AN about image use on Wikiquote

My recent comments at AN about image use on Wikiquote highlight that some of my views about image use are not simply my own but echoed by users including:

  1. Jmackaerospace (talk · contributions)
  2. EVula (talk · contributions)
  3. Mdd (talk · contributions)
  4. Aphorist (talk · contributions)
  5. Macspaunday (talk · contributions)
  6. Nick1372 (talk · contributions)
  7. TreeRol (talk · contributions)

Please see diff, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm going to take a break from this site to focus on other quality improvement projects.

I'm glad that some of my views on image use on this website are supported by multiple other users at Village Pump, including:

  1. Jmackaerospace (talk · contributions)
  2. EVula (talk · contributions)
  3. Mdd (talk · contributions)
  4. Aphorist (talk · contributions)
  5. Macspaunday (talk · contributions)
  6. Nick1372 (talk · contributions)
  7. TreeRol (talk · contributions)

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that most of your opinions on image use are ones that I share (albeit maybe not to the level that you have) - especially pertaining to the selection of proper images. But the implementation of this is what I disagree with, particularly the number of images. Also, I do not always agree that the only possible image that should be used is a picture of the author. But by and large, I do agree that the images used on the Quote of the Day pages are not always the best or even appropriate. But I would rather discuss such disagreements and arrive at a consensus than to impose rules that are not fully discussed or blessed by the community. Were this merely a discussion about the content of the images, simply enforcing the Wikiquote:Image use policy should help, but I do not know of any official policy that limits the number of images to be used on such pages. The rough guideline of 4 images has been discussed (and even, ironically enough, endorsed by Kalki as a guide), but not yet made official policy. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
UDScott, the other issues include the control of the layout of the Main Page Quote of the Day by one individual, and the use of irrelevant images in violation of Wikiquote:Image use policy. I don't know why you felt the need to revert and escalate the matter, instead of at least trying to discuss it with me. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
But that's the point - you made the changes to the pages (which you knew were not without controversy) without discussing them with anyone. I merely thought it best to revert to their initial state until such discussion could happen (which it now is). As to the other matters, I have already stated that I share concerns with the selection of images and that one person dominates the creation of these pages (although I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and assume any ownership of these pages in Kalki's stead - it is quite an undertaking to keep up with it). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
UDScott, I was quite willing to discuss the matter on the respective talk pages in a polite fashion in an attempt to come to a constructive compromise. There was simply no need for you to escalate the issue in favor of continuing your support for having one (1) user control what appears and in what layout for Quote of the Day, in violation of the wishes expressed at Village Pump by multiple editors including Jmackaerospace (talk · contributions), EVula (talk · contributions), Mdd (talk · contributions), Aphorist (talk · contributions), Macspaunday (talk · contributions), Nick1372 (talk · contributions), TreeRol (talk · contributions), and myself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Last try: Despite you saying you were willing to discuss things, your actions show that you were not, since you made the changes without any discussion. I did not escalate anything - I merely returned the pages to their initial state, pending further discussion (that is hardly escalating anything, but rather in a sense calling a "time out" so that discussion can occur). And finally, I don't know why any of my actions would be characterized as supporting one side or the other - in fact, I often disagree with the other user in this dispute (perhaps more than I do with you), and in fact called him on some of the images he used on another Quote of the Day page shortly before reverting your changes. The other thing I find interesting is that the discussions that these other users that you cite were part of did not address a limit of 2 images, but was rather concerned with the images selected - a subject that I have shown that I side with the argument that the selection process seems to be flawed. My point in all this is that until such time as we arrive as a community with some consensus on how all this should be handled, you or anyone else should not try to impose any limits based on your own opinion about what is good for the project. I just want us all to step back and make the best decision in the project's interests before taking such drastic action. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
UDScott, we've had discussion about this issue with the images and the one (1) user that you support that controls the layout of the Quote of the Day. But one example is another discussion, brought up by a different user other than myself, in October 2013 at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images_make_mobile_site_UNREADABLE. I took the discussion at Village Pump and read it as community support to take some action. I was then most ready and willing to discuss, and I started to have discussion at the relevant talk pages. I agree with you that we should all discuss and take the best actions for the project -- I just rarely if ever actually see such action being taken, so I took it, per w:WP:BRD and w:WP:BE BOLD. I don't see why you feel the need to back up and support and defend a user who wishes to violate Wikiquote:Image use policy and place irrelevant images on the Main Page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you insist on characterizing my actions as supporting someone who is flaunting the Wikiquote:Image use policy. I fully support this policy and if the reason you had trimmed images from pages was because of this policy, I would support your efforts. But instead you are enforcing a non-existent policy on the number of images allowed. All of the discussions you refer to were focused on the selection of images and none of it led to a policy on the number of images. Removing irrelevant images I am all for, but I am not for a hard limit on the number of images used (and I stated as such in the discussion you link to above, where I wrote "While I do support the removal of extraneous images, I am not so sure that I support a hard limit on the number of images. It seems to me to be a bit harsh to establish a rule based on one method of consuming the site. I would rather focus on enforcing the existing policy (WQ:IMAGE). If it is better enforced, and images that do not meet the criteria established in the policy are removed, I doubt we will have so many overly crowded pages."). A discussion about 'images' does not mean that every facet of the topic is included in said discussions. Please try to understand this and refrain from changing the subject. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
UDScott, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I repeatedly stated I was also removing irrelevant images that violated Wikiquote:Image use policy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: Kind comment by BD2412 about me

"You know Kalki, I have observed that Cirt has chilled out quite a bit over the past few months. You might want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. His questions and comments to you in this exchange have been professional, so I see no reason for you to conduct yourself otherwise." BD2412 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This was a most kind comment by BD2412 (talk · contributions) about me. :)

I really appreciate it.

A lot.


-- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion about Main Page Quote of the day layout

I started a Village Pump discussion about Main Page Quote of the day layout, at Proposal: More community involvement in Quote of the Day process.

I think I'll take a step back and revisit later and see where the community takes the discussion from there.


-- Cirt (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages

Did some category cleanup, adding categories to previously uncategorized pages listed at Special:UncategorizedPages.


-- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

I've gone through and done some Wikiquote site cleanup, helping to categorize uncategorized categories, previously listed at Special:UncategorizedCategories.


-- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, for now at least. As of now there are currently zero uncategorized categories. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt, much appreciated. --~~Goldenburg111 21:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Goldenburg111, thanks for the acknowledgement ! -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. --~~Goldenburg111 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

8th Doctor

How is is bordering on copyright infringement? It's no more excessive than, say the Wikiquote on the Lucifer comic which is where I was inspired to start this project. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Interaction ban

I wish to remind you that your interaction ban with User:DanielTom is still in place, and that given your past dispute, even clicking the "thank" button can be taken as a provocation. There is no need for you to reply to this, beyond confirming that you have read it and are aware that an interaction ban is still in place. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, quite right. Confirmed, BD2412, and my apologies about that. Sorry! -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose

[This is a formality for completeness, not an accusation, of course. You forgot to notify yourself.... :-) I corrected the page link. You may respond here, it is not necessary to respond on the page mentioned. Your response, if any, will be noted there.]

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 [commented] 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 talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

(signed, Cirt)

--Abd (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Abd, thank you for the notification. The socks do not belong to me. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I just made a lucky guess, I suppose. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be more circumspect with account name wikilink

Cirt. I sometimes wonder whether you think before you do, as at this point of time it is not evident to me that is your process. So how about you stop wikilinking my user name every time on every page, as I have more notification pings than are necessary. At this point of time I see what seems a campaign through user talk space, rather than alerting people and focusing them to one central discussion, and I wonder why you are doing that. Your approach does not seem conducive to a good discussion.

The issue that you are raising is clearly important, and needs to get a resolution that suits the whole community. That said since the admin nomination of Kalki took place, from where I sit on the outside, your approach to this whole process looks pretty ugly, and seems to have elements of campaigning, and the like. You have an important voice in this community, but please remember that we each just have one voice, that should be no stronger, and no louder, than others where we want to have a consensus of all voices. sDrewth 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst. Cirt has apparently done a U-turn, or is attempting to. ([4] and other edits.) Sometimes it takes a little time to get the truck turned around, but he's on his way, and AGF is not a belief, it's a declaration and a practice. We all need practice with it. Yeah, the wikilinks can be overdone. We need to be considerate about them. --Abd (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with both Billinghurst, and Abd, above. Will do. Got it. Will stop the username wikilinking. Trying to make a U-turn. Agreed. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Block someone please.

DanielTom (talk · contributions) is like, reverting me non-stop on that admin request. Do a check on me, I ain't no sock. DerangedMann (talk)

Sorry, but I'll respectfully defer to other administrators here on this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a break.

Repeatedly posting the same comments in multiple forums (even in response to challenges) is not necessary. The puppetmaster has been exposed, and will be dealt with appropriately. However, at this point, your overly enthusiastic brand of participation in these proceedings is probably counterproductive. Leave it alone and work on content for a while. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, BD2412, agreed. Your advice is sound. I'll take a break. And research work on content for a while. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your advice, BD2412, I've shifted to work on content for a while, and created the page on Cognitive dissonance. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Good page, and useful. Thanks! BD2412 T 19:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments, BD2412, much appreciated! You've motivated me to do some more work on content for a while, so I've gone ahead and done quite a bit of research and created the new page, Loaded language. Hope you find it interesting and educational, -- Cirt (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cirt, for taking BD2412's excellent advice. Meanwhile, I've said certain things, speculatively, that you might be tempted to correct. Please be assured that I'm aware of more than I have written and I'm not necessarily going to correct everything immediately. I will not allow an actually harmful error to remain. I'm slowing down, and deliberately. More will be revealed. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, Abd. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, BD2412, thanks to you I've become more motivated to perform additional work on content for a while -- and after some research gone ahead and created the new page, Milieu control. Perhaps you might find it intriguing reading, -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Hey Cirt. Thanks for thanking me on all of my cleanup work. Is there a page besides Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup that shows little gnome like tasks that I could do? Eurodyne (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up User talk:Cirt/Archive 2 just for the fun of it as well. :P Eurodyne (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Eurodyne, you could try Special:SpecialPages, specifically, Special:UncategorizedPages or Special:UncategorizedCategories. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to self

"The block of Miszatomic, while possibly premature, was within administrative discretion, and Cirt immediately referred this to the community, and has stopped attempting to be the enforcer here."

Note to self.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Stepping back

Going to try another stab at focusing on content work, and follow advice by BD2412 and Abd.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Further in the attempt at stepping back as advised by BD2412, created new page, Psychobabble. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've removed all the relevant pages to the recent discussions from my watchlist. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If that's what it takes, s'okay. You are not obligated to watch everything. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please consider unblocking Miszatomic

Checkusers have been discussing the Miszatomic issue and the WP SPI investigation page has been changed, [5] and Miszatomic has been unblocked. The identifications of Miszatomic with Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6 and DanielTom7 have been retracted.

There are obviously still issues regarding Miszatomic's continuation as an administrator, but the case just got much better for unblocking Miszatomic, and removing those sock tags. The two "overvoters" may remain appropriately tagged.

Please consider that. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. -- Cirt (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Well done (including the initial block reduction).
Now, unfinished business. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal) is hopelessly prejudiced now, a disaster. Rather than try to correct it, I suggest this: withdraw the request. So far, nobody has supported the removal, so I'd support it being hatted by you on the basis of error and no support being shown for removal. If someone other than you still wants the issue open, they can start a new one, hopefully after the smoke clears, and hopefully clean. There is no emergency, Miszatomic is very unlikely to abuse the tools. This is not an argument that he did nothing wrong. He screwed up badly. But the issue is the way forward for everyone. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, please see DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Super! Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Abd, and thank you for the wise suggestions. -- Cirt (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

and about RfA/Kalki

Much has transpired since you voted in Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). We aren't expected to be perfect, fortunately, but you may wish to reconsider your vote/comment there, perhaps with a judicious use of striking (or even a change of position, up to you). I understand your concerns, but some of what you wrote was shown to be inaccurate. I won't belabor the obvious.

I love unanimity, and sometimes we can even reach it. It's worth striving for. Genuine unity is powerful, it creates effective communities.

I did blank your comment about Miszatomic's vote, it wasn't relevant to the RfA. Even if he had been the vandal sock master, and even if he had triple voted (he did that one), his vote would stand singly and that he was so strongly in favor that he would sock doesn't change that. --Abd (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Struck my Oppose, DIFF. Changed to Support, DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, apologized to Miszatomic, at DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Brilliant! I can't stand it! My heart! Ahh rrkk wa;pna[a
  • Seriously, though I'm 70, my heart is in great shape, last checked. --Abd (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • My pleasure, Abd, thanks again for all your wise suggestions and advice. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


I've explained all of my enwiki troubles in the past on the RFA page. Is there anything else I could elaborate on? Would you like to know anything else? Eurodyne (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll take another look. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fluffernutter has commented. Eurodyne (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll read through that. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Correction: My email wasn't disabled because I was spamming admins with the email feature. I emailed once requesting an unblock on species from the enwiki email feature and that got me blocked there. Eurodyne (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I just withdrew to stay out of drama. Based on your comments on the RFA, it seems like you won't support an RFA by me in the future. Eurodyne (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
One never knows about the future, Eurodyne, but I highly encourage you to contribute constructively and be sincere with users, editors, and admins, alike, and truthful in your statements with them. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had any issues since that block so your advice to me is completely useless. Eurodyne (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Time (hopefully) has a way of helping you gain more experience and perspective since then. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes time is definitely a factor of this. Thanks. Eurodyne (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest perhaps allowing a bit more time to pass, and considering becoming more involved in the GA review process, or cleanup, in ways you can still help out quite sincerely, positively and constructively. -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Eurodyne, I see that you have withdrawn your nomination. You could clean up by hatting it as withdrawn, I'll leave that for you, if someone else doesn't get to it first, and you would best have first removed it from Wikiquote:Requests for adminship. Think about it.
  • Don't be discouraged. Gain the experience, demonstrate commitment, and Cirt will either support you or we can move round him. His advice is sound. I'd suggest you not self-nominate, at least not with an actual adminship page.
  • While it's nice to have more administrators, so that vandalism and spam are handled more rapidly, it is actually more important to have a community of users that support the sysops. Be one! Become familiar with the site and site policy and traditions first.
  • Learn what to do to handle spam and vandalism yourself. Actually pushing the block and delete buttons is the easiest part of it. Do the other parts, and know how to get admin attention with minimum disruption. Thanks for working on Wikiquote. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with everything stated above by Abd, thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cirt. You did come on strong in that RfA,
However, I looked at the history and, Eurodyne, this was only four months ago. You are probably young and may learn fast, but I'm not seeing what makes for fast learning: clear admission and understanding of mistakes. The unblock on enwiki does not show, as you claimed here, that "These issues have cleared up and are not problematic today." The issues were never "cleared up," but you were given a chance for a fresh start, less than four months ago.[6]
The issues are not problematic today, but it could be that for three months you were on your best behavior. How long will that last?
A general comment: there is a practice I see there that is not uncommon. An admin unblocks a user, setting conditions, usually to avoid repetition of prior problems, but never solicits comment from the user showing an understanding of the problems, and never obtains a clear agreement from the user. Very often, this backfires later. The understanding part of this is missing from Eurodyne, and his comments here show that he never really understood what he did, or if he did understand it, he didn't tell us.
"I will follow policy" is vague. Policy can be complicated and controversial. The real issue here is honesty and forthrightness, and that isn't policy, but we expect it from administrators.
Eurodyne, whenever you apply for an advanced permission, I highly recommend disclosing your history, openly. If I ever accept a nomination here, I will disclose that I'm banned on Wikipedia. It's what happened. I will not fill the request with explanations, but I'll provide them, somewhere. Wikis can and will forgive, but not what is never admitted.
Sometimes nobody is paying attention, so it is possible to gain rights without a fuss, on small wikis. However, as time passes and history accumulates, this becomes more difficult. If you want to draw attention to yourself and your history, ask for advanced rights. --Abd (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with above comments by Abd, also, perhaps waiting 6 months to a year, with positive contributions and sincere communications, before next seeking advanced permissions again, would be a good idea. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
To me, the issue is not so much time, though time is needed to demonstrate a transformation, the issue is the user's stand and understanding, which starts now. If Eurodyne wants to work on this, my user Talk page is open, and I also accept email. That's up to the user. --Abd (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


I am pretty sure that I mentioned this recently. I can identify three xwiki vandals here in the past week; and you have given them scorecards, warnings, etc. Don't feed trolls. sDrewth 05:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Which ones are they? -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
But yeah sure, I'll try that approach or a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins.

I have dropped a note on the talk page of every admin who has been inactive since 2010 or earlier. I also dropped a note on the Wikipedia talk pages of those who were recently active there. If I hear no response by the weekend after next, I will also send emails. BD2412 T 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:I've sent notification emails linking to your user talk page notifications, to Quadell (via en.wikipedia as his email is enabled there), Rmhermen, Iddo999, and Fys. Both MosheZadka and Nanobug don't have "email this user" enabled. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, emailed and notified LrdChaos. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Emailed and notified RyanCross. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Emailed MosheZadka at email he provided in 2007 here [7]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to self for admin inactivity policy

Note to self for admin inactivity policy:

  1. w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators
  2. w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy_inactivity
  3. w:Wikipedia:Administrators#After_removal_due_to_inactivity

-- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice that "Lengthy inactivity" may be read as contradicting "After removal due to inactivity." However, this can be understood as "lengthy inactivity" being a different reason from "inactivity." The "lengthy" inactivity section should be after the inactivity section, explaining an exception. Typical Wikipedia policy confusion. Once upon a time, I'd fix stuff like that.... --Abd (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll consider that as I ruminate drafting something up. In the meantime it appears current available processes are working to the support of the local community, as per the almost unanimous consensus so far in the current ongoing discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking within a quote?

I know on Wikipedia one does not ordinarily Wikilink words within any quote - is that true here or not? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I can say that I have found such quite disconcerting at times. The original author did not intend those links. They may create impressions different from the original intent. I can imagine better implementation that would default to a display of no links, and, then, a "link explorer" that would show not only explicit links declared but also every word could be a search. But that is not the MediaWiki we have. And I think some users here liberally add such. Is there a policy? --Abd (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's done on many pages and quotes, and there is no clear-cut rule in the Manual of Style or layout guide explicitly forbidding them. As long as it's not blatantly vandalistic in nature, I don't see any problem with it. As there is no rule forbidding it, I take that as meaning it is allowed. Illegitimate Barrister 08:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Collect:Yes, again, just like with the bolding, wikilinking within a quote is a violation of NPOV. Unless the word itself was linked within the secondary source for that quote, itself, then that becomes the user's own decision to draw attention to a particular word, which is a violation of NPOV by emphasizing that user's POV. Both bolding and wikilinking within a quote should be avoided. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if I may: I disagree that the practice of wikilinking is inherently a violation of NPOV. The practice is one that has always been quite common on WQ and I believe its practice is different here than it is on Wikipedia. Yes, I would agree that there are times when it can become excessive, but in general, I believe it is actually good practice that has been used as a means to expose readers to other pages in the project. In Wikipedia, its purpose is more to help readers with difficult terms or concepts. It can be used for that purpose here as well, but has the additional use of directing readers to other pages. I don't know that there is, nor ever should be, a hard and fast rule on the use of the links or even how much of the links are OK - it has always been a judgment call and we have not had very many issues regarding it. In the end, I believe they are a valuable tool that helps our project grow and I fail to see how it adds any POV to the quotes. NOTE: I suggest, should this conversation continue, that it be moved to the Village Pump for a wider audience. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's inherently a violation of NPOV. It solely reflects the POV of the user that chooses where or when to add bolding or wikilinks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." There. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How does it reflect a POV? Adding a wikilink merely lets the reader travel to another page - it does not provide any emphasis that would lead to a POV. And the link you provided is a Wikipedia link - as I pointed out, we are a different, although related, project. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How does it not add POV? How does a user decide which words to wikilink, within a quote? What about bolding? Both are tools for users to emphasize certain segments and thus violate NPOV. There's simply no reason not to have such wikilinks as a footnote, below the quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your premise, but rather than continue this as a on-on-one, I am moving the topic to the VP. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I note you haven't answered my questions about how and why a user chooses to add bolding or wikilinking within a quote that did not originally have bolding or wikilinking in that quote. -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My answer and the remainder of this discussion is now on the VP here: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Wikilinking_within_a_quote ~ UDScott (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@UDScott: Thank you for taking this to an appropriate venue.
@Cirt: When a newcomer asks an administrator for advice about something like this, it is probably best to say it is not settled policy and has a history of contention, as you are surely well aware, and to advise them to proceed with moderation rather than trying to promulgate your own opinion with pronouncements on their talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
They came to my talk page to ask my take on things, so I gave my viewpoint. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Collect did not ask your take on the matter. He expressly asked how things are done here, at Wikiquote, in relation to how things are done at Wikipedia. I believe it is the duty of Administrators to give straight answers when newcomers ask this sort of question. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, and the only policy we have to guide us is WQ:NPOV not some page saying it's perfectly okay to pervert quotes from other people's writings. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ningauble - it is our job as admins to act as an impartial guide for newcomers, providing links to guidelines or policies (or even to relevant discussion on the topic of their query), but not to provide your own opinion on such a matter (unless directly asked for said opinion). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, but there is no policy or guideline, other than WQ:NPOV, which is quite clear. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, good, we're getting somewhere. But I do not believe it has been established that NPOV is an applicable policy in this case. Again, I know you believe that these links violate this policy, but that is not yet an established link. The policy is clear, but its application in this case is not. If a newcomer asks about an area in which there is no established policy (or without a community-agreed link to a policy), I would not tend to be so forceful in making such a link, perhaps steering them to past discussions on the topic. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, good, and I'm glad you linked to past discussions in a comment at Village Pump when you said some past discussions that might help this one can be found: here, or here and or even here. And I followed one of your links and agree with this comment: "Some users are quite restrained in adding these links and some, in my opinion, have gone totally overboard.". -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And that was a perfectly valid opinion expressed in the discussion (one comment among several) - I would even agree that there have been some cases where this was the case (that there was just too much linking), but the discussion was ultimately not entirely fruitful in that it did not result in a consensus on how to proceed. Given that lack of consensus, I still believe this means that the use of the links remains OK. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
IFF the original author of the quotes chose to highlight their own quotes with fancy blue coloring and underlining, then sure, we could, as well. Otherwise, nope. -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Further re. the job and duty of administrators:  Collect asked how it is done here. The truth of the matter is that it is done quite a lot. It is okay to include your opinion when answering the question, but any answer that does not take cognizence of how it is actually done here is simply false. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
When there's a question about NPOV, we should stray on the side of not violating NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Besides, as there's a "history of contention" the default should be to NOT use bolding and wikilinking, until such time as it could be "settled policy", if it's not, as NPOV, is. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually (and sorry to jump in again), but to me, the default should be less restriction when there is contention, rather than more - meaning that the default should not be to forbid the use of something if there is no clear policy stating so. This is something that I would expect all admins to agree to since this is the basis for wikis in general. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually the default should be not to use bolding and wikilinking because it violates existing WQ:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you believe it violates NPOV, but this is not established yet - hence the discussion. In the absence of community consensus on this, the default should be less restriction, not more. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the default should be to avoid the contentious use of bolding and wikilinking on a contentious unsettled issue. We already have the WQ:NPOV page. We don't have pages allowing alteration of other people's writings. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are two issues here. I have seen wikilinking damage the neutrality of a quote, or simply be useless. So there is an NPOV issue.
  • Then there is how it appears. We are mostly accustomed to it, if we are long-term wiki users, but it can distract from the quote itself. I do not have enough Wikiquote experience to have a better understanding of the range of impacts. Perhaps in the Village Pump discussion, there will be some meat to chew on, some actual examples. But the theoretical damage is a real possibility.
  • It is clear that there is no community consensus on this. The default is neither encouragement nor prohibition, and one product of a fruitful discussion would be a guideline. Wikis often think, ah, instruction creep! Who needs that? Well, as a result, many hours of labor get wasted, as a topic is discussed over and over. Guidelines are not policies written in stone, or at least they shouldn't be. Following a guideline, however, should be a way to avoid wasting one's own time doing things likely to not survive. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good idea, Abd, and I agree with you that wikilinking can damage the neutrality of a quote, and that this can be an NPOV issue, and that it can distract from the quote itself. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You and I are basically Wikipedians by birth. While many Wikipedians also don't understand NPOV, Wikiquote, with its simpler mission, has mostly avoided the issue. WQ still has notability issues. What these Wikiquotians want is a kind of interpretive freedom that does exist in full bloom on Wikiversity. So here we are, with years of work that have gone into creating those links. Instead of addressing this problem when it first came up, it was ignored by the community. Common wiki problem, it was created when "wiki" was chosen as the name. "Quick." Actually consider all the aspects of an issue, negotiate deep consensus? Too much work, we don't need it. It will all work out by itself. And when that doesn't happen, blame the "disruptive users." Yeah. That's it! Or when others walk away in disgust, never mind, they didn't understand anyway. Or it was those disruptive users who drove them away. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Abd, many of the "disruptive users" you speak of, at least in the recent past, were likely socks of each other. Some of those socks even made it to admin, in fact, even made it to admin with multiple accounts, unfortunately. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I should be clear. "Disruptive users" includes some who were highly disruptive, and allowed to be so by the community, and even some who are still active, as well as some who have been identified as sock masters and disgraced. Basically, some users developed, early on, very strong personal opinions about what Wikipedia should be, and if they were early and very active, some of them obtained advanced permissions and practically ran the place. These users did not need to sock. (But I still suspect the possibility of Bad Hand accounts; one of the possible Bad Hand accounts bragged he had more than one admin account. He knew how to sock without detection, usually. He slipped once, that's how that account was nailed. I developed a method of identifying active sock accounts, that doesn't need checkuser, but abandoned that because ... it was a lot of work and it was useless. There was no community interest.)
Gradually, the community developed resistance to some of these users, but it is very slow to move. In particular, the worst problems I addressed involved factional editing. That has never been addressed, it has been assumed that if a dozen editors congregate and support a position, this is consensus, unless a major train wreck develops. I studied this and attempted to raise it before ArbComm. That effort probably led to my first major ban ("MYOB," the one that finally made it impossible for me to work on Wikipedia). I was troutslapped by ArbComm for "making accusations of violation of policy without providing proof," but I had not alleged policy violation, and I had heavily evidenced my claim. Factions can warp article POV without violating policy at all. Basically, ArbComm didn't know a solution to the problem, so they didn't want to face it, my opinion. There was another case involving the same faction that I'd identified, and ArbComm responded very weakly. And that was raised by a high-level functionary.
I will summarize my conclusions: Wikipedia structure sucks. It was developed without sophistication by people trying something for the first time. And then, it's easy to explain, it became frozen, highly conservative, highly resistant to change. It's all predictable, like clockwork. It is not a result of the Bad Users. That's a myth that avoids taking responsibility. "We have met the enemy and he is us.". --Abd (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your concerns, Abd, about the possibility of additional existing "Bad Hand" accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to lift interaction ban

I have proposed to lift the interaction ban between you and DanielTom. I think the two of you can get along now. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, BD2412, commented there DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The interaction ban is removed. BD2412 T 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexandervonweimann and Captain America

Hi Cirt. I'm having problems containing this loser from bloating the article. Can he be blocked for the meantime? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Less active

Less time for wiki stuff for a while, might be a few days or a while.

Will try to check in now and then.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup work

Reduced pages listed at Special:UncategorizedCategories = to zero. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This one appears to now be cleared. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)