|135,888+||This user has made over 135,888 contributions to Wikiquote.|
Hello Kalki, on the page purpose, Rupert Loup removed a lot of your edits, as can be seen here. Could you please put them back? I cannot since the page is locked. Thank you for your time. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CC0D:2862:2E0B:1820 04:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Other activities have kept me extremely busy in the last few days, and I do not anticipate having the time to address these contentions adequately for at least another day or two — I will probably address them along with at least a few others within the next week or so, but can anticipate being delayed even in that time frame. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kalki, last month I asked if you could check out purpose, since Rupert has (for no valid reason) removed quotes you put back on it. Just wondering if you've been able to look into it? --2001:8003:4085:8100:3161:911A:953C:8F41 11:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I kept your note intact, after removing most others, and thus moved it to the top of this talk page, at that point genuinely believing I might get around to it shortly, and now put this one directly below it. I believe the entire talk page below exhibits at least a small portion of the many reasons I have not had time to deal with that situation as yet. MANY physical world projects and tasks are currently far more urgent and important for me to address than these computer tasks, and in regard to those, the contentions below have recently been consuming much of my available time here. I intend to eventually examine many situations and pages of this wiki more thoroughly as soon as possible, but I honestly CANNOT provide any definite answer as to when that will be, and it might be many weeks yet. ~ 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I quote Rupert Loup: "Roll back since no explanation in the talk page has been given in how these are closely related". That reason is more than valid enough. Otherwise, Kalki would have done something about it immediately instead of leaving the page be for six months. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this same IP has constantly been removing categories from War crimes without explanation. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I genuinely have no eagerness to get caught up in many of the contentions that have gone on in recent months, and am not extensively familiar with most of them, but I had intended to attempt to do what I can, and I don’t actually believe that after substantial work examining a page, comparing past and present states, and editing it carefully, that a simplistic rollback of them all "since no explanation in the talk page has been given in how these are closely related" entirely suffices as justification of that, but I am well aware many current disputes are often zealous contentions between competing POV presentations more than anything else. I simply have not examined most of them closely enough to know the details thoroughly or sufficiently and certainly have not had time to get extensively involved in scrutinizing them, criticizing them, accepting them or praising them. I believe my previous edits were made towards a more acceptable and generally balanced state of presentations, and though I might perceive a somewhat inconsiderate insult at the sudden revert, I do not take any great offense at it. I simply then and now have had little drive toward becoming enmired in the time-consuming sorting of such complex matters out. That is STILL the case, and even more so now, when several others have suddenly arisen. I hope to have some time to deal with yours within perhaps a week or two, but even after that I still might have too many tasks to devote much time to examining and becoming extremely attentive to what seems to me to often be edit wars between various contending factions of POV-pushing or petty pedantries on various pages. I can sympathize with many diverse advocates of many diverse issues, and like anyone, some more than others, but I do not want our pages to continue to decay towards becoming extremely imbalanced partisan POV placards without tolerance for broad diversities of views, and I have never been greatly interested in arguing over the tedium of many categories and disputes about them. In the current state of affairs, I am quite exhausted, and have many other tasks to attend to yet, and am inclined to believe it might be at least a few weeks before I even begin to have enough time to extensively engage further in some of the significant issues emerging here. ~ 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this same IP has constantly been removing categories from War crimes without explanation. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• NOTICE on formatting
• February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question (20 February 2020)
|JessRek6 statements and responses # 1|
Thank you for your efforts to maintain the Quote of the Day. In the early minutes of February 17 2020, you added a new suggestion, and used it, that had support from no one else, that no one else had an opportunity to review or vote for, rather than select from among the existing suggestions, several of which had various levels of support from multiple editors, is that right? JessRek6 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I did check the timing of events before reaching out to you:
Some questions for you please:
I have attended to selections of the QOTD since 2003, and very nearly from the inception of this project in that year. Even those relatively few quotes selected before I began doing so were usually quotes I had initially entered into the project pages, when they were first beginning, but selected by another admin. Within a few years, with the help of others, I had set up the ranking system which exists so people could provide suggestions, and gauge and rank their opinions of the merits of the available suggestions, and throughout the years I have generally chosen from those with the highest average rankings, and usually, but not always, given a further boost of a 4 ranking to whatever quote I finally settle upon for a particular date from the lists of those available, when I do make my final decision. There have actually been very few complaints regarding my selections of quotes over the years, but among the very few of them have been those of sufficient fervor as to have inspired commentary from others that they were glad that they did not have the tasks of dealing with such contentions. They actually have been surprisingly and extremely rare though, and almost always by someone not pleased I did not select their particular suggestion or preference.
For practical purposes and limitations it is recommended that quotes have some relation to the date, and most typically this has relation to the birthdate of the author of the statement. There actually are NO absolute constraints on subject matter, themes, sources, or suggestions from any particular editors, but there actually has been generally low participation in the suggestions over the years. Though a few who have participated much have made many diverse additions on various subjects, many of the most prolific providers of suggestions have actually tended to have relatively narrow focus and interests. For many years one of the most persistent posters of suggestions tended to post quotes with very militaristic, pro-authoritarian and even villainous slants, and to usually rank very low those statements of more generally admirable sentiments which most people generally ranked high, but that did not dissuade me from approving and using many of his genuinely acceptable suggestions, while strongly and adamantly contending against, and ranking very low the most noxious of statements he suggested. During a period of his most intense activities, I openly appealed for greater participation in the ranking processes at the Village pump to prevent the "Quote of the day" from becoming the "Nazi quote of the day", because at the levels of participation that then existed many of his very skewed rankings on many pages would have occasionally left me little choice but to select some of his preferences against my own and MOST people's rational preferences. That period of crisis eventually passed, with greater diversity of participation, though some remnants of his more bizarre preferences still exist on many pages.
There is a ranking of "0" which I myself have seldom used, indicating an absolute rejection of the suitability of a statement for QOTD, which I am inclined to use only for extremely false or foul statements. That being said, there are actually no absolutes on the "deficiencies" or flaws or errors within statements which absolutely disqualify any of them entirely from consideration, and I do not suppose that any statement is required to be considered entirely perfect of flawless by any standards which could be devised. You seem to be exaggerating the significance of my statement regarding the growth of my gradual unease at using the quote you suggested for that day; as I stated it actually was the quote I initially thought I would most likely use for that day, but did perceive deficiencies in it which I weighed against it.
The quotation you suggested reads:
Your statement that at the time I made the selection "there were 5 suggestions with opinions from multiple editors, 3 of which with 6 votes total, and 1 with 5" is rather confusing: For maximum versatility and consideration of many factors, I tend to consider the average of the rankings of the individual quotes, and certainly do not go by how many total rankings they might have received, and to be clear, there were at the time of my final decision and posting of the Morgenthau quote, 8 other suggestions, 5 with 2 clear rankings, and NONE with more than that, and where you perceive that one selection had "5 rankings" I have no idea — there were at that time 3 other suggestions with only ONE clear ranking. In any event, by the time of selection, I had rejected some of my initial impulses to use your suggestion, and as I was somewhat late at getting back to the computer I was considering simply using the suggestion of Bystander53 (talk · contributions) which had earlier prompted me to look at the Morgenthau page, but decided on using what I honestly considered a somewhat better quote of Morgenthau. ~ 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
I definitely never implied in ANY way that you were a person in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day" — and consider any attempt to imply that I actually did as a very petty polemic. You had inquired increasingly derisively as to my rationales and processes in selecting quotes of the day — and I simply mentioned some of my experiences in past years in dealing with some of the ways various narrow-interest editors have and can skew results and ratings, and gave some indications of some of the ways I have responded to some of these, mentioning some aspects of one of the most prominent of the problem editors.
You derisively asked "Do I understand you consider the rankings as unreliable indicators of community consensus?" You might possibly MISUNDERSTAND any number of things I have stated and state, but I actually consider the rankings the primary means by which I can and do gauge the consensus, but your own stated tallyings and calculations DEFINITELY seem to be either absurdly confusing or deliberately IGNORING the ACTUAL mathematical processes involved in any rationally valid use of the ranking system used, and imply that consensus should be measured simply by some cumulative addition of the rankings posted for each quote rather than the more rationally accurate AVERAGING of the rankings posted.
EACH and EVERY suggestion page clearly presents these OPTIONS for ranking quotes:
I believe it has always been quite clearly evident to most people that anything approaching an actually fair processing of the rankings above innately involve an averaging of any rankings for any quote — and a quote with a ranking of 4 and 1 would thus have a resultant ranking of "2.5", and NOT some kind of "cumulative total" of "5" — such an absurdly irrational system as involves a simple ADDITIVE cumulative count would permit a 3 people to rank something "1", as barely acceptable, and have any quotes they alone rank 3 and "very good" have no greater consideration than that one — or conceivably even have a dozen people rank something "0" and UNACCEPTABLE as a Quote of the day, and yet have a single 4 ranking of it outweigh ALL such rankings if no other quote available actually got so much as a cumulative 4. Such extremes might actually never occur, but EVERY calculation could actually be VERY skewed AWAY from genuine consensus.
After I had typed in many of the above observations, I noted that you added a statement implying "6 editors expressing support, 4-4-4-3-3-3" could be outweighed by my single vote of a 4, and certainly that is also conceivable, but it also certainly has never happened. I can even concede it conceivably could occur if a famous personage died and a quote regarding his demise became appropriate for a date where there were already very highly ranked quotes — but in all the years of my editing here any quote with so much as two 4's or three 3s has usually been among my top considerations, and it has actually been very rare to get so much as three "4"s for any statement — and if not the product of obvious sock puppets, multiple rankings of 4 without contrary rankings of "0" — such as actually has occurred regarding some quotes of the pro-authoritarian editor I mentioned earlier, are always given prominent consideration, and usually have eventually been used.
I make no denial that averaging process innately does permit me to have a somewhat greater sway in deciding the final selections than any average editor, and I do not believe that this is extraordinarily unjust or unfair, as for years I have daily considered the sometimes wide varieties of options posted for any dates, and am certainly NOT committed to advocating for any particular group or causes to the exclusion of any other, though like any human being I have my own affinities and antipathies to various ranges of sentiments or inclinations. The "cumulative tally" process you seem to be either assuming or advocating as appropriate is one I find innately absurd and irrational — and believe that MOST people can plainly discern that it would ALWAYS permit and IMPEL absurdly skewed results entirely out of ranges of ALL the norms of opinions and actual consensus regarding the quotes.
I also make no denial that from the first months of this project I actually have had the role of the final decision maker on the QOTD, and probably have retained that role primarily because most others regularly involved here definitely did NOT wish to become caught up with the burdens and hassles sometimes involved in such decisions, and if you are actually advocating so absurdly irrational a system as insists there should be nothing other than a "cumulative tally" of rankings which actually disregards and destroys any rational reckoning of genuine consensus, rather than the more rational and fair AVERAGING of rankings aimed at ARRIVING at clear notions of consensus, I believe many people can plainly see in that fact that there are quite irrational lengths people can and will go to to favor their particular agenda or inclinations to the disregard to all other rational considerations.
I will close in actually addressing what I believe to be most of your above points, by agreeing that González can CERTAINLY "be forgiven a less-than-High English grammatical construction and some use of hyperbole" — but such a use is something I believe is quite also quite forgivable and acceptable to take into consideration AGAINST such particular quotes in comparing them with others. I also believe that you can be forgiven for your apparent resentment that I did not select your suggestion. As I have indicated I was mostly inclined to use it, for at least a day or two, and all your arguments against my processes of consideration have NOT led me to conclude that it is in any way not eventually acceptable, and though I might suggest possibly dropping the first problematic line of it, I probably would not actually insist even on that. The quote simply was NOT the one which I preferred to use for this year on that date, and I can anticipate perhaps using it at some point in the future. I make no commitments to that, though I do actually presently believe it likely. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ 20:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
•• Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard discussions (24 February 2020)
•• Template talk:QOTD Ranking discussions (25 February 2020)
•• Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day discussions (26 February 2020)
• Request strike-through of personal attacks (28 February 2020)
|FALSE claims of personal attacks of "Nazi comparisons" & responses|
Please strike through the personal attacks you posted at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day and Template talk:QOTD Ranking. Thank you for your commitment to Wikiquote policy, to civility, and to focus on content. JessRek6 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Role of rationale in consensus (29 February 2020)
|Further confusions and contentions…|
Immediately prior to selecting a Quote of the Day for February 29, you down-voted a suggestion from a colleague of ours, offering no further comment [ ].
As you know, by Wikiquote policy WQ:PG, Wikipedia policies and guidelines usually apply to Wikiquote. Policy Wikipedia:Consensus explains that consensus is not vote counting. Wikipedia:Closing discussions asks that consensus be determined through careful consideration of the arguments. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion documents our community norm that "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."
•• Request for admonition at Admin noticeboard (2 March 2020)
Hi, I saw you blocked this IP address for 1 week. I think you should block it indefinitely because when It’s block-free, it’ll continue. Thanks.( （Talk） 10:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
- User accounts which have been used only for spam or vandalism are usually blocked indefinitely very swiftly, but unless there is a clear history of repeated periods of vandalism, we usually avoid long blocks on IP addresses, as many vandals change these frequently. Usually a day is more than sufficient on most IP addresses, and I seldom block them more than a week or a month, save where they have a long history of abuses, and then I might block them 6 months or even a year. There are sometimes "range blocks" of many IP addresses made for long periods, but I rarely have made these, save when there has clearly been a definite range of IPs involved in a spate of vandalism. ~
10:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I don’t have any experience as an admin anyway. ( （Talk） 10:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
• Please strike through comments involving Nazism (3 March 2020)
|FALSE assertions implying or asserting that I called JessRek6 (or any other editor here) a Nazi|
•• Accusation of "Incivility from an administrator" at Admin noticeboard (5 March 2020)
Responses to hoaxes and trolling
- Remarks on hoaxing and trolling by crosswiki-vandal Nsmutte, who started hoax edits in the guise of Yarddose (talk · contributions) and another newly created account at the Admin noticeboard. When I began to post notices indicating a slight familiarity with this particular pattern vandal, he began comments here which I have "commented out" from displaying, as contemptible pretensions, which the curious can examine in the edit pane if they wish. I have also copied the comments from the Admin noticeboard here for a continuity and conclusion of presentation.
I am personally inclined to block you here as quite obviously hoaxing and maliciously trolling from an account blocked at Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of a banned user there, but currently, not familiar with many of the situation's details will leave it to others perhaps more familiar with the situation to do so, if need be. I could definitely change my mind if the hoaxing and malicious trolling continues. ~06:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- In responses to your commented out hoaxing here, and hoax assertions elsewhere: I am familiar enough with your pissant pretensions, hoaxing and trolling to have contempt for them. I do not intend to accommodate them with any pretentions of credulousness in regard to your misleading assertions. Further attempts at hoaxing and trolling may result in a permanent block. ~
07:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yarddose has now been blocked for one day, awaiting comments or actions by other admins, stewards, or other officials regarding a permanent block. ~ 07:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior and subsequent activities at Admin noticeboard:
The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote:
Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.
My advise change your user name in following way :
NOTE TO ALL ADMINS: It is more than likely that this entire posting involves hoax discussions between iterations of a banned Wikipedia editor: User:Yarddose has been blocked at Wikipedia as a sock puppet of banned editor Nsmutte. ~ 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote:"Jesus MyGods1" is a religious user name.
Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames .. Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.
Previous Wikipedia discussion: Administrator opinion
I don't know why you are asking me, I'm not responsible for either of the blocks you mention. The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable, Whether the name of a Roman god would really have offended anyone is another matter, but strictly speaking it's in line with policy. If you disagree with the block, discuss it with Kalki. The deleted page title was clearly disruptive editing, not an encyclopaedia article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Bonadea is a Roman religion god. Administrator of Wikipedia clearly tells , Roman religion god name " Bonadea" prohibited.
Other Wikipedia administrator openion:
Wikipedia Arbitration committee member opinion
Administrator User:PhilKnight opinion on this subject:
Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as'Jesus" "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.
User:Kalki is prohibited user religious user name. All religious user names old and new prohibited in wikiquote.
kalki is a religious god name , prohibited in Wikiquote, due to this reason, he is mis using his power and blocking me . Please read the link i provide . Kalki is hindu religious god user name. User:Kalki is prohibited user religious user name.He know this fact. I explained here many admins not supporting religious names.
Read Wikiquote user name policy : Religious user names :"Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged" .Kalki and Bonadea never change user name policy to get benefit for their user names (126.96.36.199 07:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
(188.8.131.52 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
- For future reference to other admins, if a user shows up here, or pretty much anywhere else on any project complaining about religious user names and especially about Bonadea, they are definitely a sock of w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte and should just be blocked on sight. GMGtalk 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you an administrator on Wikiquote?
- I have done an permanent block on Technoquat Quotation (talk · contributions) as a trolling and vandalism only account of a long term abuser of wiki accounts. ~ 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Noam Chomsky quote
Hi Kalki. I am hoping to add a quote to the Noam Chomsky page. However, I am unsure of where the quote first originated. I have outlined the problem on the relevant discussion page (seen here Talk:Noam Chomsky#Hope, freedom and change quote) and was wondering if you could please help at all? Many thanks in advance. --Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know the source of that quote, or when Chomsky first expressed such sentiments, but it reminds me of the much earlier assertion of H. G. Wells in Outline of History (1920):
- "Our poverty, our restraints, our infections and indigestions, our quarrels and misunderstandings, are all things controllable and removable by concerted human action, but we know as little how life would feel without them as some poor dirty ill-treated, fierce-souled creature born and bred amidst the cruel and dingy surroundings of a European back street can know what it is to bathe every day, always to be clad beautifully, to climb mountains for pleasure, to fly, to meet none but agreeable, well-mannered people, to conduct researches or make delightful things. Yet a time when all such good things will be for all men may be coming more nearly than we think. Each one who believes that brings the good time nearer; each heart that fails delays it."
- I believe that Wells also used a very similar expression in at least one other work, but I am not sure of that at this point, and it is likely that Chomsky has also expressed his similar ideas in more than one form, in various writings and interviews. About the best that can be done is to do google searches for specific portions of such expressions, in hopes of encountering such variants. ~ 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you're probably the best Wikiquote editor with over 140,000 edits, maintain QOTD daily and are a countless help to the community, I can't see why you're not a bureaucrat on Wikiquote already. Are you considering on doing an RFB sometime soon?
- I was once a bureaucrat and during that time I believe that there was a generally good development and increase in active admins here, but various confusions and contentions led me to desire to resign that post, and amidst some controversies to state the intention of doing that, quite displeased at many developments of improper assumptions and erroneous accusations which arose. Caught up in a very unfortunate clash of perceptions and wills I always recognized and conceded that some of my of my own actions could seem or be problematic to the perceptions and wills of others, but certainly never accepted the deficient assumptions or erroneous assertions that I myself ever did anything unethical or in any way intended to do anything improper, though amidst tens of thousands of edits, I actually had done a couple accidental edits which could seem such, and still, somewhat understandably amidst the initial confusions, failed to retain my adminship. Far less understandably, it took what I considered a ridiculously long and troublesome time after the subsidence of many erroneous assumptions and assertions for my adminship to be restored. In the time I was not an admin, despite continued activities and services here as the most active participant, I had to regularly suffer for many years the very increased abuses and sometimes very intense harassment of some of the most vile, despicable and contemptible vandals, trolls, and corrupted and corruptive individuals that I have encountered on this wiki. Even after it was restored, I have not had the time to resume many of the levels of attention and activity I once had here, and despite nearly daily activity of around an hour or so, I have done far less than I used to, even as an admin, and usually have far less time to do much that I wish to do here. I am still very glad and satisfied to merely be an admin here, and to serve this project as best I can, with the time I still have available, but I have no desire or intentions of ever being a bureaucrat again.
- As to today's QOTD presentation, though in recent months I have usually used only one image, and usually have had neither time nor inclination to use more, I have occasionally used two, and for many years I regularly put images to both sides of the QOTD, and considered that usually better visually balanced than just one, at least on desktop computers. I have now looked at the current page in various browsers on both my desktop computer and an iPhone, and see nothing exceptionally imbalanced in any of these, though the mobile options are almost always more problematic and imbalanced in ANY situation. ~ 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
It concerns one
- It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.
- Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.
- And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately.
- Plus, it falsely accuses me and Rupert loup of harassment and edit warring (which it started while we tried to stop), but it has provided no sufficient evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am responding here as I was pinged from this page by DawgDeputy. You might want to see this report at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy.
- DawgDeputy has created same blockshopping threads on 8 different Administrator's talk page, even though a report is already posted on WQ:AN.       
- Weird name has already been explained in detail--Pratap Pandit (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Not urgent but I will note that a fair propotion of the remaining Linter identifed concerns on
Relate to content you contributed in good faith.
Much appreciated if you could examine the pages listed there with a view to "tidying" up the formatting so that it's more compatible with the much stricter HTML/wikitest parsing rules now applied on Mediwiki platforms. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Friendly notice recommadation
Id like to say and ask that i made a mistake but you dont have to be so cruel on me and say i make false information and id just did not what to do it my first time editing a page and why are you treating me so..... Angie williamz (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Simple question YES or NO
- Your first edit was an alteration of a quotation to diverge from its published version; your edit summary, which I deleted from normal view because of dubious or inappropriate information within it read in part: "I improved it and makes it have i even talk to her and she said i can edit so nobody must review it and if you have a problem contact me…"
- I commented on that edit summary with my remark: Adding FALSE information is NOT "improvement."
- This was hardly a cruel action, but simply an indication of facts of the matter, and I was giving you the benefit of a doubt that you had not deliberately intended to make a wrongful edit. Altering quotations is normally regarded as vandalism, and those who deliberately engage in that in defiance of policies for the integrity of the project usually very soon get blocked. These are just a few remarks on the matter, as I proceed to attend to other matters elsewhere. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I recognized that category was rather absurd when I mentioned it (as perhaps it's existence as a rationale for having removed the one which I restored to the article). I actually might not have noticed it before — but I tend to believe that many of the categories are rather presumptive or needless, and really have spent little time in developing them beyond very basic designations years ago, and I tend to apply only some of the most basic of them to articles myself, and rarely contend about those others chose to apply or develop out of varying motivations. I simply happened to notice your edit, and could not see any valid rationale for removing the designation of "Nazi" from Joseph Goebbels. ~ 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)