User talk:Singlecut

Please stop removing sourced content from Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.
Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses or usernames being blocked from editing.
Thank you. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This turns out to be the very first edit by someone who, at the time of the edit, did not know about edit summaries. In fact, they sent an email to Wikimedia asking how to add that type of information. I'm in correspondence with them and will confirm that they know how to use edit summaries.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Kalki appears to have overreacted. In this situation the {{remove}} template, which recommends exactly what the contributor subsequently did,[1] would have been more appropriate than a level-2 vandalism warning. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I wish to note that I have been accused of "over-reacting" because on 3 March 2016, I simply here gave what I believe has been the most-used notice on this wiki for an unexplained removal of content, one which has been used MANY HUNDREDS of times since 2005.
I totally agree that this editor exhibited no clear intent to vandalize, and I did not assume there was one, but this notice has long been the most used one in such cases. "Subsequently", months after that edit, there was a more appropriate edit on 24 September 2016, where reasons for the removal from the quote section were evident in the edits — something I believe I also observed, probably on that day, and accepted as appropriate, without the need of reading an edit summary (which would have been somewhat helpful, but again, is something which has never been absolutely mandated, and should not be).
I do agree that the "Remove" template actually IS a better option in such instances where intent on vandalism is not apparent, and I will now probably begin to use it more — but must also note that on this wiki it has been a relatively OBSCURE and RARELY used template — used less than 47 times in the 12 years since its creation in 2005, and from my brief scanning of its usage, it seems that prior to its mention here it had last been used in 13 May 2014‎. I thus hope reasonable people can agree that I might well be pardoned by this editor for not having it as the first and foremost response on my mind, and can note that I did NOT assume vandalism or block the user, which certainly WOULD have been overreacting. I also hope that most reasonable people can agree that I hardly exhibited an extreme over-reaction by using what has been the most commonly used response, in what might have been one of my usually VERY brief sessions here this year, and not using a template had not been used in nearly two years by ANYONE.
I hope that this editor finds involvement with this site something desirable to continue, despite any apparent rudeness on the part of myself or anyone else. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)