User talk:Kalki/2020
Add topicThis is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2020.
Top heading changes
[edit]For several years I had let a few notes initially intended as temporary ones stand at the head of my talk page, and that heading eventually read:
BUSY—BUSY—BUSY & BUSIER, AM I…
[edit]I have MUCH to do in coming days and nights — and I do NOT expect to have much time to spend here for at least another month, and perhaps several beyond that. On most days I do expect to be able to spare perhaps an hour or so here on QOTD activities — but it is not likely I will be able to very often spend much more than that for at least a month. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + substantial revision — MANY things are keeping me increasingly busy — and many unanticipated problems demand attention within the next month. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I have only VERY briefly checked in today to update the QOTD — and must be leaving again soon. I do not expect to have the time to engage in many discussions for at least the next few days, as I have many matters to attend to locally, and am not likely to spend even as much time on the internet as I recently have, which is far less than normal. I will probably attend to a few matters to the extent I can, in what brief periods I might find some free time to check in here, within the next week, but do not expect to have much more than a few minutes at a time to spend here on most days, though I might be able to spend perhaps an hour or so within the next day or so. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I had meant to do significant work here yesterday, but unexpectedly ended up traveling about more in my local region of New England than I had initially intended, doing only a last minute iPhone edit on a QOTD while still on the road, and finally did a full layout for this just a few minutes ago, from home — but now I must be leaving again, for at least a few hours. I don’t have time to examine much more at this time, will be leaving in a few minutes. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I was finishing up what I was thinking would be my last tasks of the day before heading home, and got a call, and will now be busy at least a few more hours. Managed to make it home in time to post QOTD, but am expecting someone to be picking me up within a few minutes. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I might do some final commenting and archiving of material on this page soon, within the next few days, but don’t have much time to attend to it right now. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I finally altered that heading on 2020·02·24 to what might serve as the top-most message on the page for quite some time to come:
I usually have only a sporadic presence here on most days
[edit]Though I once regularly spent many hours of most days at least monitoring this site, I now quite often spend less than an hour a day doing so, at various random periods within most days. There may be a few periods this year where I will have the opportunity for extensive activities here for days at a time, but I am not actually counting on that occurring very often. I shall continue to usually check in at least daily, but Time shall reveal what opportunities times can provide. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Please range block
[edit]The turkish IP LTA has returned, please block this range and yank talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We've got a hypocritical vandal on our hands.
[edit]207.225.26.200 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
- It accuses me of ruining what it thought was updating the Toy Story page (when it was clearly vandalizing), which had been protected for a year before for good reason. But all of its edits were nothing but blatant vandalism and violation of copyright. I request this user be blocked for no less than a year (then again, its antagonistic behavior should be grounds for indefinite blocking) and all articles it vandalized, including all Toy Story articles, be protected for no less than the same period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blocking it for one week is not going to stop it. One year should. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The anon IP twerps who vandalize wikis typically do not used a fixed IP, and thus blocking an IP for even a day is usually sufficient, though sometimes several week-long blocks of IPs might be done on persistent vandals using changing IPs. I generally block the IPs of the more obviously obnoxious twerps a week, though sometimes more, if I believe it might be in any way effective. Where IP ranges are repeatedly used they are often blocked for months or a year. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 03:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- This one never changed IPs. Do observe its history of contributions, dating back to March of 2017. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blocking it for one week is not going to stop it. One year should. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Purpose
[edit]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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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
[edit]For the convenience of readers and editors of this page, I have begun using "collapsable" options upon large sections below. I have also added some minor formatting tweaks of indents in many of the discussions with JessRek6 presented below — in the original postings she very often did not use them, easily making many of her comments seem contiguous to the one above them to casual scanners of the discussions. I wished to make all the actual changes of participants more visually apparent in the renderings on this page. I expect no major interest in examining them from most people, but I have also added a few "commented out" explications at a few points in these discussions (visible only in the editing panes after " <!-- " markings), to emphasize some significant divergences between the actual facts of matters and some of her more extreme assertions and allegations. Bullet points and dates have also been added to the headings of those sections involving contentions with JessRek6 for easier identification and clearer representation of the time spans involved. Double bullet points indicate discussions copied from other pages. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
• February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question (20 February 2020)
[edit]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:
Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
|
•• Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard discussions (24 February 2020)
[edit]JessRek6 request for reduced protection of a widely used project template
| ||
|---|---|---|
Please semi-protect Template:QOTD Ranking (currently it is protected). I would like to add a few sentences encouraging participation in ranking QOTD suggestions and setting expectations regarding the role of the ranking in the QOTD selection process. Thank you! JessRek6 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I actually definitely disagree with the reduction of protection of the template. I believe that this editor's responses can easily seem to have something of the character of the legendary Greek armies before Troy suddenly declaring "please open your gates" so we can eventually better collaborate after you accept our beautiful gift of a wooden horse. The results here could certainly not be so disastrous as that of the legendary tales, but I have the impression it is very likely they would not be much more welcome to anyone of genuine good faith and good sense. Anticipating changes of a basic instructional template "limited to" one per day is something that definitely seems extreme, and extremely contentious. The existing templates read very simply:
In reviewing the above, I believe that perhaps the statement regarding the "4" ranking could be entirely in bold text to denote the definitely imperative nature of it, in regard to any other options considered, thus reading: "Excellent - should definitely be used." In addition to the simple straightforward presentation of the ranking options a very brief summation of the selection process could also be added, something along the lines of:
OR, at most, a somewhat more extensive elaboration, perhaps reading:
The available options for potentially sudden additions outranking previous options in considerations seems to be what this editor most objects to — but I believe that such should ALWAYS remain an option available to whomever makes the final selections for QOTD, now and in the future, so as to be ALWAYS be able to be swiftly responsive to any major contemporary developments, such as notable deaths or disasters, and also as a potential fail-safe measure against "invasive troll work" which are conceivably very plausible actions on this and many other sites in the present era of social media contentions and clandestine political subterfuge. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
|
•• Template talk:QOTD Ranking discussions (25 February 2020)
[edit]QOTD Ranking discussions
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposed addition to the template to offer participants a brief overview of the selection process, and to set expectations regarding the weight of making suggestions or ranking suggestions:
Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Edited for length and clarity JessRek6 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC) I was just about to leave, having already made a QOTD selection for today, and perhaps not having time to get back for further editing anytime soon, but noticed your additions here, and am delaying slightly. All in all your suggestions are more moderate than I feared they might be, but also a bit more extensive than I believe is actually necessary. At most I would prefer to extend them to such a layout as I mentioned earlier on the Admin noticeboard after the protection levels were reduced here. It would display somewhat in this form:
I could see possible addition of some of your above suggestions as well, among the above assertions, but I generally would prefer to keep the instructions as short and simple as possible. Possibly an alternate coloration to the section in a pale yellow or blue might also be used, to make it stand out a bit more on the page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not a noticeboard, it is a talk page, you need not defend the selection process here or anywhere else. After all, no one is complaining. My point in examining one week was to look together at what really happens, in service of suggesting that in the text we add we avoid constructions such as "almost always" or "usually" or "occasionally" that characterize how often a consideration enters into the selection decision. I am heartened that you view the above proposed text as moderate and an improvement. Based on your comments, I have edited it for length. I hope that there is some area of agreement. May I propose that the content, indicated above in italics, mainly the greeting and salutation, the invitations to participate, and some simple statements of basic facts, is non-controversial, and may be added to the template as we continue to collaborate on a concise summary of the considerations that enter into the selection decision? JessRek6 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Extensive responses to misleading assertions[edit]I believe I quite definitely need to defend the selection processes here, and I believe that you have definitely been implicitly or explicitly complaining in your present and recent statements. As I have already indicated I believe many of your assertions are VERY misleading, in some cases perhaps deliberately deceitful, and your final comments earlier that what I believe to be my quite honest and accurate assertions regarding matters "would be misleading to participants" to be among the most misleading of your own statements, and prompted me to attempt to expose how erroneous and FALSE I believe many of your assertions have been. In rebuking and refuting what I consider the very warped, skewed, unjustly derisive and simply FALSE assertions you have provided above I will make a few very relevant observations. You seem very skilled at using polite and considerate language in conjunction with some of your VERY impolite and inconsiderate actions and innuendos, and after you twice posted info which I believe far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than any good faith editors I will adapt the Emma González statement which you had suggested and I happened to decide against using as QOTD on the 17th: I call BS. On your User page you post 6 incidents of having made QOTD suggestions, and have checked off fully half of these as quotes which I had actually selected for QOTD:
You seem to have become irate regarding my assessments and decisions after I did not provide you the opportunity to check off a 4th on your very acceptable but very targeted agenda on the 17th. In relation to this you have cast aspersions on my judgement and procedures and long years of work on this project, and prompted me to spend a substantial amount of time and effort in recent days, between other tasks and duties, in beginning to counter what seems to me to be some of your perhaps casual but intense disparagement of my moral integrity and some of the conscientious and simply practical processes I have developed over the years, dealing with a preparations against a wide range of actual as well as potential problems. I have stated that in doing daily work here in providing QOTD suggestions and selections for the many years since 2003, I have actually not only done MOST of the work of making selections, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, but also the work of seeking and providing MOST of the suggestions on MOST pages, and nearly all of them on some, and having already used what few suggestions others have provided on some pages, currently the ONLY suggestions remaining available on some are entirely those I have provided. This is the actually the case on the suggestion page for the upcoming QOTD for February 27, where other than the 23 suggestions I have posted, 13 of them already chosen, ONLY 3 other suggestions by ANYONE ELSE have been provided AT ALL, in ALL of the years in which it has been available, 2 of them very welcomed and already used additions by a broadly discerning contributor of many quotes to many pages, and one of them, actually the first QOTD for that date, was one simply posted by an anon IP in 2004, prior to any formalities at all having yet developed in the selection processes. I believe that the ACTUAL STATE about THIS PAGE and MANY others, and the actual quality and quantity of my contributions relative to those provided by others should definitely be taken into account and not a simplistic tally that is apparently aimed at implying or misleading others to assume that that I tend to choose primarily my own quotes AS IF that were simply indicative of an "unfair bias" or a devious procedure on my part — rather than very often a definite consequence of a relative paucity of well-ranked or even existing alternatives on MANY pages. In seeking out the "last moment changes" which have occurred because of sudden events so far this year, I found that there have thus far been only 3. I scanned the January 2020 summary page, and the first was in regard to the death of Kobe Bryant, posted as QOTD of the 27th of January. I am not actually an avid fan of any spectator sports, but even I was familiar with many of the admirable qualities and accomplishments of Bryant, and I wept many times on that day at the circumstances of his death, and that of his daughter and their companions in that helicopter crash, and have wept many times since in many of the tributes which have been given by others regarding his life. On hearing of his death I immediately cast all other considerations aside, and sought out a quote of him to use for the upcoming QOTD. There were at that point NONE actually available upon his page, only quotes about him, and in searching the internet I found several admirable statements attributed to him, but could not sufficiently source them, but finally came across a very good one with a reliable source, and used it:
Reviewing the summary page for February 2020 I observed that the next "last moment change" after the death of Bryant had not been in regard to a death, but of a rarer event in the prominently historical statement made by Mitt Romney on his decision to vote in favor of convicting Donald Trump on one of the impeachment charges against him. I believe that only after using that for the 6th of February I learned of the death of Kirk Douglas, and the next day once again cast aside other considerations and used a quote of Douglas in regard of his death. I start my larger exposition of activities and assessments with providing what I believe to be a broader, deeper and more accurate sweep of things with a more extensive and meticulous INDICATION of actual circumstances, starting with the very beginning of this month's edit's, and facts about the various options available, the relative rankings of available prospects, and perhaps sometimes some aspects of the considerations I have made in choosing one quote from among others, or seeking out further options beyond those initially available. I will also provide indications of the tallies of quotes from PREVIOUS years in relation to EACH of those dates, so that a far more extensive range of facts and considerations about them can come into play to anyone taking any note of our contending assertions about matters. For many years in working the suggestion pages, I tended to rank nearly ALL the quotes which were provided by anyone, and many other participants did that also, but as I perceived fewer and fewer people actually showing any inclination to do that, or rank others than their own, and some acts of extremely skewing all the tallies to favor their own suggestions or preferences, I myself began to more seldom rank the suggestions of others in bulk, and now, for various reasons of time and circumstances, probably quite often provide many of them a ranking only when I actually select them, or actively choose not to do so, in favor of some others of similar ranking. In your above "audit" of a few days this month you apparently seek to denigrate me by declaring such assertions as "You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself". I believe that in the last few years, and perhaps even the last decade of additions, MANY quotes, and perhaps MOST of the quotes added probably don’t have any rankings by others than those who posted them. As the years pass by, though there certainly are exceptions on some pages where good suggestions have been bountiful and even remain so, many of the remaining quotes which have been passed over for selection for many years on many pages are increasingly those which have NOT been highly ranked by anyone, save perhaps the person who posted them. You seem to seek to imply or insist that I act regularly or even primarily in favor of my own suggestions, and do not provide fair or sufficient regard to the suggestions of others. I do not believe that claim is born out by the actual record of my many years of activities here. I have provided a link to the QOTD suggestion pages as the links of the birth and death dates of nearly all authors pages. I certainly have not attempted to impede others from making contributive suggestions to these pages, but over the years relatively few have done it, and personally aiming to maintain an abundance of riches on most pages, rather than a paucity of prospects, this has left the bulk of the current suggestions available on most pages as my own. I here provide a summary of the characteristics of the options available and the resulting choices annually made upon these dates in February since 2004 :
In summary of the above tallies: I myself have, over the years, provided 740 suggestions on the 29 pages of this month, used 362 of these, and there have ONLY been a total of 342 suggestions OTHER than my own, and from this much smaller base, 114 of them have already been used, for a ratio of exactly one third of their total. I am not tallying the relatively low rankings many of the remainder have, but I believe that to be the PRIMARY factor in regard to why most of those remaining have not been used. I am here emphasizing the slightly surprising fact that over the years, though I have supplied a substantial SURPLUS for most pages, there have actually been, in total, FEWER suggestions even made by others than have actually been NEEDED to provide quotes for the month of February. Though as I have stated, currently it is increasingly common for suggestions to have few or no rankings other than that of those who provide them, I believe that the rankings of others of many of my own suggestions which have been already used have generally been higher than that of most others, and especially so in regard of many of those which remain with relatively low rankings after many years, and which I now very seldom take into primary consideration, although I have very occasionally altered my own assessments of the incidental suitability of some of them for specific dates, and actually shifted my own low rankings to high ones to use a few of these. In two of the pages listed in this month-long sampling I have already actually used ALL of the suggestions other than my own which have been provided. — I believe that all of this indicates I have given very substantial consideration and use to the suggestions of others, and remain very conscientious in making assessments and any selections for QOTD, whether suggested originally by myself or others, or even people who have been extremely adversarial towards my own or most people's preferences. I believe that only very skewed perceptions or conceptions of things would produce from the above facts any contention or efforts to imply that I am regularly or even primarily unjust or unfair in making selections. I have provided many suggestions, nearly all of which I believe to be worthy of eventual use in the years to come, and have very eagerly chosen many of those provided by others which warrant prominent consideration — and especially those clearly favored and not merely commented upon or ranked in the lower ranges by a majority of others. I again emphasize that the number of rankings of a quote is NOT a primary consideration, and I believe should not be — but rather the actual QUALITY of the quote for the date, as indicated by the average rankings, or in the case increasingly of many suggestions — their only rankings. Though prompted in part by some anger at some of your assertions, I actually am NOT resentful of having been impelled to make this response, because it has actually provided me an opportunity to meticulously review some things in ways I had never before done, get a clearer gauge of what many of the states of things on many of the suggestion pages actually have been and presently are, and develop greater sense of some of the actual statistics regarding the choices provided and decisions made. I am now likely to make a choice for the current QOTD soon, and then attend to other matters. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks |
•• Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day discussions (26 February 2020)
[edit] QOTD guideline discussions
|
|---|
I've added some notes toward documenting the mechanics of how to maintain the QOTD. Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Recent contribution to Wikiquote, reverted, moved to discussion page. This is the second half of the maintainence instructions, and describes the mechanics of setting up a QOTD for a future date.
General interest in participation in the QOTD selection process is evidenced by the immediately preceding section of this discussion page, #Selecting_quotes_for_Wikiquote, an unanswered request from 2011. Documenting this process is long overdue. Fundamentally, Wikiquote is a Wiki. Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do. The QOTD is a highly visible feature of our main page, but the QOTD is not Wikiquote; any potential exposure to the QOTD is not an existential threat to Wikiquote. We offer extensive online help documentation on every other aspect of editing the Wiki as an expression of our invitation to open collaboration. Every time we make something easier for good faith editors we make it easier for vandals. No content or process is so mission critical that it must be reserved solely to the purview of any one editor. Security by obscurity is the weakest form of security. These instructions do not include anything that could not be discovered with a little clicking around. Documenting this process does not significantly increase any exposure. A manual editing process that ideally should be performed once per day must be able to be performed routinely by many editors, and must be able to be staged ahead of time, not at the stroke of midnight by one and only one editor. Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|
• Request strike-through of personal attacks (28 February 2020)
[edit]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)
[edit]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 [diff]. 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." What are your thoughts on this community norm? JessRek6 (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
|
•• Request for admonition at Admin noticeboard (2 March 2020)
[edit]Kalki requesting rebuke of improper and detrimental activities of JessRek6 (but not requesting any immediate block)
|
|---|
I have previously declared some of the behavior and assertions of JessRek6 (talk · contributions) as appearing to me in various ways suspicious or improper, but I have not attempted to prevent her from engaging in any forms of activity which I have simply found to be mildly irritating, mildly misleading or merely troublesome in various ways. I will state that she has attempted to make very sudden and not previously discussed and completely undisclosed one person declarations and descriptions of entirely new practices and policies AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned in regard to various things, by various measures, some of them quite improper. This first of these became clearly evident in attempts to post AS IF they were established and approved official procedures such practices as have actually NEVER been such, to a project page. There were earlier merely some discussions in which she used or advocated irrational and improper methods of tallying of the rankings of quotes as if they should be used to designate cumulative rather than averaged values, and other assertions in which I found little or no merit. I found these mildly surprising, but so plainly irrational as to not be seriously alarming in most regards. I am inclined to characterize some subsequent behavior as subtle trolling or derision, but the presently most serious incidents of a clear misuse and abuse of some of her privileges have been evidenced in her postings to pages for suggestions for the QOTD of recent dates. This has thus far only been done regarding 2 pages, but it definitely should not proceed further. On the rather meager and seldom used options available for February 29 she ranked as "0" and thus "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" every quote suggestion but 2, justifying this with assertions either that "Quote from same source [i.e. AUTHOR] used previously on this date" and/or "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date". On the more extensive options for March 1 she has thus far limited her rankings of "0" only to my particular suggestions, ranking all 7 of my unused suggestions "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" sometimes SOLELY with the putative justification "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date". It is possible that she has perhaps begun to become at least a little bit more appreciative of some of the absurdities of some of her current actions, as rigorously applying her novel criteria to the options available at the March 2 page would rank 21 generally highly ranked options on the page as "Not acceptable", leaving only 1 option on the entire page, a quote proposed in 2009 by Zarbon (talk · contributions) but not rated more than a 2 by anyone, including him (and which I actually give the highest expressed regard, declaring a "lean" toward 3, in ranking it 2). Applying the same criteria by which she has posted a "0" to suggestions of the previous two dates would declare as "unacceptable" all present and future quotes by such individuals as of Dr. Seuss, Carl Schurz, Russ Feingold, Mikhail Gorbachev, and John Irving, as they have all previously been quoted on that day of the month, and also one suggestion which I actually already had indicated was unacceptable without explicitly ranking it "0", as having been wrongly attributed to Peter Straub, when it is actually a statement of Jesus as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.
She is plainly and methodically applying criteria entirely extraneous to the merits of the quotes themselves in ranking them, in a quite irrational and improper abuse of the most extreme of the available rankings. I request that other admins recognize that the criteria she has been attempting to apply, advocate and copiously imply to be validly established by various postings, are actually disruptive and detrimental to the genuinely and sincerely contributive efforts of many others, including myself, and to join me in requesting, and indeed instructing her to desist from this behavior of irrationally applying such irrelevant criteria, as an improper disregard and disruption of the many-years-long rational applications of these rankings by most others. I also believe she should be officially requested to remove or alter all the "0" rankings justified merely by the criteria that material from EITHER the "source" or nominator had been used previously for that date, as being an innately inappropriate use of the "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" designation. I certainly would not seek to forbid her from using the "0" ranking for legitimately valid reasons, with which it has long been used, such as the clear falseness or the perceived foulness of a statement, or its lack of correct or reliable citations. There are also matters of lesser importance, one of which I will specify here. As I have been the selector of the QOTD here since 2004, developed the ranking system in use without any significant controversy as to my selections made with it in all the years since it was developed until the current ones which arose after I did not select a quote JessRek6 had suggested for a recent day, it is is certainly not necessary to expressly specify on each and every QOTD that they were "selected by Kalki", as she has begun to do on several pages, and I request that I be joined in requesting her to cease in this activity also, though it is of clearly lesser consequence. Even so, such a procedure of specifically identifying every QOTD I select as having been selected by me from the available options is no more necessary or proper than it would be for each and every quote on every page be specified as "provided by User:WHOEVER happened to actually post it." It simply adds to distracting and generally unneeded and useless information. I welcome consideration and discussion of the matters involved, and hope that we can soon come to agreements. I will be notifying her of this discussion also, so that she can respond as to her understandings, and any rationale or motive she might wish to present regarding her actions. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
|
86.135.249.221
[edit]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.(Josephine W. （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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 10:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I don’t have any experience as an admin anyway. (Josephine W. （Talk） 10:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
• Please strike through comments involving Nazism (3 March 2020)
[edit]FALSE assertions implying or asserting that I called JessRek6 (or any other editor here) a Nazi
|
|---|
Please strike through your comments referring to Nazism. JessRek6 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
|
•• Accusation of "Incivility from an administrator" at Admin noticeboard (5 March 2020)
[edit]Based on FALSE allegations JessRek6 calls for indefinite block of Kalki
|
|---|
Please see User talk:Kalki#Please strike through comments involving Nazism.
Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose an indefinite block (with the privilege to edit their own talk page as per usual) until they strike through personal attacks.
Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines states:
Specifically, the following aspect of the civility policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:No personal attacks also applies on Wikiquote:
Comments? Wikiquote administrators, please weigh in. Thank you in advance. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's drop it and get back to editing. I don't see anything constructive coming from this discussion, just acrimony. Let's be civil and constructive here: this is supposed to be fun. All the time everyone is spending here talking is time we aren't spending adding quotations to this directory. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose administrator strike-through of personal attacks on the target talk page and an administrator warning to Kalki regarding our policy of no personal attacks. Comments?
User:JessRek6, you have to stop this discursive pleading. The community here has given you plenty of opportunities to air your grievances and the more you post, the less support you have. I understand that things can get heated and all of us do or say things we sometimes regret but this incessant harping on this issue is frankly just a disruptive tempter tantrum. As someone who has been entrusted with helping manage this community, I don't see the value in these threads and I am letting you know that this needs to end. The administrators here do not have a consensus for your preferred action, we will not, and this post is just tiresome. I'm closing this entire discussion to anyone other than an admin for the purposes of reopening it with something new and constructive (seems doubtful): i.e. Non-admins, do not edit this discussion any further unless it is reopened by another admin. Please go back to actually editing the directory of quotations and let's leave this be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
|
Responses to hoaxes and trolling
[edit]- 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 07:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior and subsequent activities at Admin noticeboard:
Goodbye Nsmutte
|
|---|
(Jesus MyGods1 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC))
The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote: 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. My advise change your user name in following way : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes (Yarddose (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC))(157.48.52.243 07:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)) 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
User talk:BD2412 , Please block User:Jesus MyGods1 , because any one can create articles about "Jesus" , but his user name is against Wikiquote user name policy. The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote:"Jesus MyGods1" is a religious user name. 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. (Yarddose (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC))(157.48.1.63 07:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
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. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bona-Dea
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:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as'Jesus" "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited. (Yarddose (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Kalki , 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 (157.48.45.166 07:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
(157.48.45.166 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
@Kalki: I have already posted a request for global lock of these accounts, and what do you mean by early childhood? (Josephine W. （Talk） 11:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Kalki https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bona-Dea |
- 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?
[edit]I notice you have a presence on here. Are you an admin? I need to tell you something. --Technoquat Quotation (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Noam Chomsky quote
[edit]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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
RFB?
[edit]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?
(also, today's QOTD broke a bit, pls fix!) dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 10:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Assistance requested
[edit]It concerns one Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
- 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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
- Weird name has already been explained in detail--Pratap Pandit (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Linter concerns...
[edit]Hi, Not urgent but I will note that a fair propotion of the remaining Linter identifed concerns on
- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/misnested-tag
- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/stripped-tag
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
[edit]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
You said what you said and i understand that but why be so cruel and harsh on me would you give me guidance on wikiquote or not please Angie williamz (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Help???
[edit]How can I help here??? AtlasJunkie (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Goebbels
[edit]The category Nazis is OK, but why do we have the category People from Nazi Germany? All Germans between 1933 - 1945 were people from Nazi Germany.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 18:31, 14 October 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi kalki
[edit]If your not busy could you help me out with where I can find sourced quotes? I asked UDScott and left a message on village pump. I'm still confused. Do I need to watch tv or movies then write down quotes? Or search over the internet? Thank you. FcoonerBCA (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever quotes one finds to be noteworthy should simply be provided with a citation to verifiable source, such as a specific published work, film, video, television show, or song lyric, and preferably be widely found by others to be noteworthy. The advice provided by UDScott as to contributing quotes or pages to the project is sound: "probably the best place to start for someone new to the project is here. It is important to keep in mind that if a valid and verifiable source is not provided for a quote, it is likely to be removed and/or the page deleted." ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Revertings
[edit]Hello Kalki! The conversation about linking to Wikiquote has led to the situation that about 100 links are reverted. Is this legal and good to the project?--Vilho-Veli (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am not currently familiar with either the conversation or the situation you mention. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- En-wikipedia's Village pump.--Minä muka (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info. I have now noted various aspects and assumptions of the conversation at "Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing", but I am still assessing many aspects of developed and developing situations, and potential responses to them. I do not currently have the time to adequately examine all the currently available information, but will very likely make at least a few remarks on things within a day or two. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) + tweak
- Note that Vilho-Veli account and other socks were globally locked mere minutes after opening this section, and the Minä muka account was then created to post the reply here. Alsee (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info. I have now noted various aspects and assumptions of the conversation at "Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing", but I am still assessing many aspects of developed and developing situations, and potential responses to them. I do not currently have the time to adequately examine all the currently available information, but will very likely make at least a few remarks on things within a day or two. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) + tweak
- En-wikipedia's Village pump.--Minä muka (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You made a mistake
[edit]Those edits made on Madea Goes To Jail and Madea's Family Reunion were not vandalism, nonsense or gibberish. They were already poorly formatted, and all they were doing was just fixing it. 152.26.199.24 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I happened to check in just moments before you began reverting some of my reversions, and noted some of your activity as rather standard trolling, and blocked you, and responded to your notice at the "Vandalism in progress" page with a summary of actions made:
- New report 2020-12-10, 1616
- Kaiki (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
They harrassed 2603:6080:a608:500:c4a7:879:c426:975b for being constructive. 152.26.199.24 16:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- The anon IP I initially blocked (2603:6080:A608:500:C4A7:879:C426:975B (talk · contributions) exhibited some standard trolling and vandal behavior, with their very first edit summary stating: "This is an edit you cannot and will not revert!" The content of the pages were moved to titles not matching the corresponding Wikipedia pages, and I restored them to the standard matching titles. I just happened to check in again just moments after the IP 152.26.199.24 became active, and noted the remarks on my talk page, but other apparent trolling activity, including the remarks here prompted me to block that IP. I did restore some of the very slight formatting improvements to one of the pages, made by the previous IP prior to one of the page moves, but rejected the non-standard coloration of text and non-standard page moves. I was only very briefly checking in, and will not be able to stick around long. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
That is about all I have to say on the matter. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
ClownDeputy is back...
[edit]...and it is out for revenge in the form of...
Diasmanozy (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
All of this user's garbage/nonsense edits (which include illegal caricatures that do not belong on Wikimedia!) have to be hidden and it must be blocked for good. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)