User talk:FloNight

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Feel free to contact me on this talk page to talk about Wikiquote related matters. But for the fastest reply contact me by email.

Hi FloNight. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Feedback![edit]

Not that it will help that much! As a wiki wanderer I arrived here and dealt with some vandals and accidentally became an admin with much to learn - it's only recently I managed a deletion request without errors! I can tell you there are some great people here, that it is not like en wp (great) or en books (for me confusing, I nearly know what I'm doing there).

All the admins here really are very experienced and by and large very helpful indeed. They do have their own way of doing things but I find that on all wikis - if I could spell chameleon I'd say I'd try to be like one and fit in (firefox is so good at correcting me?). All that said if I can help here (or elsewhere) I always will, in part that is what admins are for in my mind </ramble>. Let me know if there is anything particular - cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Likely that you are being modest about your knowledge and talents :-) Good to know that there are many helpful folks around here as I'm sure I'll need much assistance as I learn the ways of this wiki. FloNight 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! :)[edit]

Welcome aboard, dear Flo!! :) Love you, Phaedriel - 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. :-) FloNight 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the compliment, Flo. I knew that if I didn't do it, someone else would. ;-) --Ubiquity 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi there. Thanks for the warm welcome. Applew 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New Year's resolution[edit]

Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project. I'll pitch in and help as much as I can. Happy New Year to you. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, looking forward to your help! BD2412 T 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Phil Esposito[edit]

It would have been really nice of you to drop a line telling you've nominated an article I've created for deletion. I discovered this by pure chance—and without notifying anybody who can fix an article with some issues, you're certainly making Wikiquote so much better. I have added two inspiring, and sourced quotes. I hope that will keep the article from being deleted. Maxim(talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hey~ I'm fairly new to Wiki in general and was wondering what you meant by: "housekeeping/author request type speedy" (here) Toushiro 23:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your kind words supporting my nomination for adminship. I will try not to make a mess as I learn to use the tools. ~ Ningauble 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jim Carrey[edit]

Thanks so much for the kind words. I actually agreed wholeheartedly with the points you made at the previous deletion discussion for the page - but then as part of my work on Comedy I wanted to turn redlinks blue and did some research to find some poignant sourced quotes by Carrey from interviews and such. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Guh?[edit]

So, after voting in your Wikisource confirmation, I just happened to look at your userpage (and only realized then that you were female, heh; I honestly hadn't given it much thought) and then, on a lark, looked at sulutil:FloNight. It was then, and only then, that I realized that you weren't a sysop here.

"Guh?" was my response, hence the subject line. :)

Have you thought about making a run for sysop here? I think you'd be a shoe-in. EVula // talk // // 16:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think WQ needs more admins now? If so, then I will be happy to help. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm of the opinion that we can [almost] never have too many sysops, especially ones that obviously know what they're doing. Besides, I'd rather you get the sysop bit and never need it than you needing to run to some sysop to just to take care of something. ;) EVula // talk // // 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. If you want to nominate me some time, I won't decline it. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Careful what you wish for... ;) EVula // talk // // 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sysop status[edit]

Congratulations, you are now and administrator here. ~ Kalki 09:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
"Thanks for volunteering to do more work." :P EVula // talk // // 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, FloNight. :-) You'll do just fine as an administrator for our project now also. – RyanCross (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Cirt (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I moved your RfA to its own subpage, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/FloNight. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Lane[edit]

I tagged Nathan Lane for deletion. If you are still interested in researching it, just remove the {{prod}}. ~ Ningauble 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Prod is fine. I'd forgotten completely about it and don't have a strong interest in researching him. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: I did some research and cleaned up the page a bit, so I went ahead and removed the PROD. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Cirt. You are doing a great job saving content. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB thankspam![edit]

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

Recent VFDs[edit]

I fully support your recent nominations, but wondered if some of them (the ones that lack sources for the quotes) wouldn't be better as PRODs. I have been doing this for many pages with unsourced quotes - it is quicker and easier and we have established that if pages do not have sources, it is a no-brainer delete. Just some friendly advice. ~ UDScott 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I was unclear if no sources had become an uncontroversial reason to delete since some of these entries have clean up tags added by established users. Late last year/early this year, most of these were still going to Vfd, I think. This will be much simpler. Thanks :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Regency films[edit]

I see you deleted this (against my opinion but of course I accept the cosensus). However, there are still 17 pages with that category in, now showing a redlink. Shouldn't there be some automated way to fix that?--Ole.Holm 18:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. ;) Cirt (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

re Derek Abbott[edit]

Okay thanks, no worries. That site is borderline, but the one that is certainly not allowable is The Wickedictionary. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi FloNight. I rather agree with you about practically everything, and greatly respect your work at WP:Arbcom and Strategy:Task force/Community Health, but I was a little taken aback by your closing statement at Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott. It is quite unusual in a closing statement here to introduce opinions and findings that go beyond reflecting the consensus of the discussion or clarifying procedural matters. My feeling is that this should only be done in extraordinary situations.
  1. I do agree with the keep outcome, which is supported by the weight of the arguments and is the clear consensus of participant opinions (discounting StarWarsFanBoy's gratuitous boilerplate).
  2. "Clearly within the mission of the project" strikes me as a matter of opinion, and this may be more a borderline case than a clear one. WQ:WQ (which passes for a mission statement, such as it is) and WQ:Q (which offers factors to weigh in subjective determinations) often do not lend themselves to clear distinctions.
  3. "Discussion shows that the quotes are republished" is an incorrect finding. Two discussants note that the quotes are from an interview (the e-zine is clear that "Abbott told PhysOrg.com," indicating original material from an interview or correspondence for their article) and two others note that the article refers to an unpublished paper (as clearly stated in the e-zine). Even if some of the remarks were excerpted from a draft or review copy of the upcoming IEEE paper (the e-zine does not cite any as such) it would be a prepublication and not, as one of the discussants seems to have thought, a republication.
Would you consider amending your closing statement? I would also be interested if you want to share any thoughts on closing statements in general, because I am open to dissuasion from my opinion about limiting their scope. ~ Ningauble 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I felt that the mixed comments of the discussion needed a detailed explanation to make it clearer. I'll be happy to explain my reasoning.
"Within in the mission of the project" means that it falls broadly into the category as something that would not be eligible for speedy deletion as something clearly outside of the scope of the project. Sometimes a Vfd entry would be eligible for speedy deletion, either from the start or after it is reworked. That is clearly not the case in this instance, so the weight of the comments is needed to determine the outcome.
The word "re-published" is meant in a less technical meaning that you are giving it. I was evaluating comments in the discussion about whether the web site was a vanity press type outfit. These ideas from Abbott on Psych.Org are not completely unique, but as you note they are rehashed from his work in other venues. This was not original research that was being published in a light weight medium that we are repeating as a tool to get his message out like a purely self-promotional site would be. IMO, most people in the discussion view PhysOrg.com as a reliable source, instead of a vanity press.
Before I close a borderline discussion, I do a sanity check to see if I can accept the conclusion, because I would not close sometime that I think is absolutely incorrect in the conclusion being reached in the discussion. Instead, I would have left a comment, or edited the article. In this instance, I can accept the conclusion and decided to close it although I would not have voted to keep. For a variety of reason, personally, I do not think it is the type of entry that we should encourage on site. I hope that helps. Feel free to ask for an explanation any time. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I too do not like to encourage this type of entry, which is why I was struck by reference to the mission of the project. Now I understand that you did not mean the project's "mission" per se, but rather its norms and policies; and that you did not really mean "republished" at all. (The latter called to mind some recent discussions about using repetition in secondary sources as a way to indicate the notability of a quote, but in this case we have only a primary source interview.) I get your point now, I just read it as overstated. Thanks for explaining. ~ Ningauble 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein[edit]

I see this has just been deleted for having no sources. I'm doing an article from scratch - 100% sourced!--Ole.Holm 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I put it on my user page to rewrite when I found links with quotes on other pages after I deleted it. I ran out of time to do it today, so I'm glad that you can do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote interlanguage communication[edit]

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)

FYI[edit]

Hello, FloNight, I hope you are doing well. ;) I have preserved an easy-to-access subpage, as a record of the standing restrictions against Kalki (talk · contributions), which came out of your initial investigation. See User:Kalki/Restrictions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Has Kalki apologized?[edit]

I am curious, has Kalki ever apologized for the work his multiplicity of accounts caused for you? BD2412 T 03:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is possible that I missed it if it was included in one of his lengthy comments. In general Kalki's comment's left me with the impression that Kalki thought I've done something wrong by examining the editing history of the accounts. --FloNight♥♥♥ 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I HONESTLY do wish you well and I DO apologize and seek to apologize in many ways for many things that have been burdensome to you and others — I repeat I have no wish to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of anyone, and hope that others will eventually see that it is not conducive to anyone's welfare to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of others. May the fates bless you and lead you to bless others well. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kalki, I appreciate you stopping by my talk page and leaving a comment. Hope that you have a happy and productive day! FloNight♥♥♥ 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)