Jump to content

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/024

Add links
From Wikiquote

Blacklisted social networking sites

[edit]

The following websites were added to the spam blacklist a month ago by administrator Cirt (dif). Existing links to these sites are noted in this list:

One user, DanielTom, has requested that Twitter be removed from the blacklist (dif). Note also that citation to this type of site has been discussed at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c. without reaching consensus.

Should any or all of these sites be blacklisted or un-blacklisted? Is this an administrative call, or is broader community discussion needed? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose removing any of the above. They are unreliable, as they are not durably archived. They are used for spamming as well. Best to stick to reliable secondary sources, whenever possible. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is sometimes the true source of celebrated quotes, such as the ones by Richard Dawkins. Twitter is the most accurate (and reliable) source in such cases, for verified Twitter users, and has been used on Wikiquote for a long time. Could some admin who actually contributes to Wikiquote remove this recent addition of Twitter to the "spam" blacklist? Or will edits like these continue to be disrupted from now on? Come on. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any logical reason to block these sites totally and would support removal from the blacklist.--Abramsky (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with their prohibition. If a quote from Twitter or Facebook or the like is worth quoting, it will be quoted in secondary sources, which can then be cited as evidence of the quotability of the quote. BD2412 T 13:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to STRONGLY disagree with their prohibition. EVEN if one wishes to primarily encourage quotes that are already widely quoted elsewhere, as some seem to be inclined to do (and I do not), the blacklisting of these sites PREVENTS the linking to the original sources, and seems quite unnecessary, and actually more detrimental than helpful, especially when pages of certain celebrities are of "verified" status within these sites. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
@BD: do you have anything against primary sources? If you do, you must be on the wrong website. I want to link Dawkins' quotes to their true source, not to some journalist's opinion on why his tweet was offensive, thank you very much. DanielTom (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether some journalist found a comment to be offensive (or praiseworthy), but whether it was notable at all. If Dawkins (or some similarly famous person) tweets their grocery list, should it be possible for that to be added here as a quote? By what principle, then, should we not add to Dawkins' page his entire Twitter stream of over 14,000 tweets (including, in the past few days, "Listening to the Carols from King’s College, Cambridge. Very lovely (except for the pretentious rolled Rs), matching the sublime building."; "Catholic Church has a legitimate right & authority to veto scientific conclusions that directly contradict her dogma [link]"; and "I LOVE this video. [link] Anybody know if music copyright problems'd make it hard for me to do something like it myself?" BD2412 T 15:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be working under the assumption that unless you block websites like Twitter, total chaos will ensue, and everybody is going to start adding banal quotes to our articles. Well, sorry to break it to you, BD, but despite your much-repeated and beloved example, no one is actually interested in adding grocery lists to Wikiquote. No matter how much you may fear subjectivity, I affirm that any selection of quotes is necessarily subjective, and I find it strange that you should ask by what criteria are quotes chosen when you yourself follow up by selecting a number of quotes which, presumably, are to appeal to our common sense for what constitutes triviality. How did you do that? By what "principle" did you select those quotes? (By what principles do journalists select their quotes?) You see, I trust our readers' and editors' intelligence in the selection quotes, as I do that of our reviewers (like yourself), who are free to remove from any article quotes which they deem too trivial for inclusion. I only fear subjectivity in administrative areas, where force is used, for example in selecting the period of time for which a person should be blocked. I resent that we are only having this discussion after primary sources like Twitter were blocked, and that the "rules" were changed in the middle of the game, with no consultation. I would like to say a few more words about this, but last time I did so, you blocked me for three months, and God knows for how many months you will block me next time. That's exactly the kind of arbitrary judgment that concerns me. Not fear of grocery lists. DanielTom (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible to discuss the best practice without discussing the personalities involved, so let's focus on that. Let's say we forget grocery lists then, and look at the actual Twitter stream. Here are the last eight tweets by Dawkins which are not already mentioned above, and which are not merely retweets or pointing to links:
  • Are dreams epiphenomenal or have they Darwinian survival value? I find "tidying the hard disk" (Evans, Crick) to be not a big enough theory.
  • Been watching recent David Attenborough DVDs. He just goes on getting better and better. Truly superb, magical.
  • Again accused of ignorance of theology. But what is there in "theology" to be ignorant ABOUT? Tell me 1 theological fact & I'll learn it.
  • Religious acts between consenting adults should not be illegal. #Turing
  • Oral sex is illegal in several US states. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries. What kind of person thinks it's the state's business?
  • What kind of moralist makes a "crime" out of a private act, which harms nobody, simply because it's forbidden in some old book? #Turing
  • What kind of moralist makes a "crime" out of a private act, simply because they'd prefer not to do that act themselves? #Turing
  • "Overturn a conviction" sounds a lot better than "pardon". "Pardon" implies that #Turing did something wrong in the first place.
  • It’s not a posthumous Pardon that Alan Turing needs, but a posthumous Apology. Same for the many others convicted of the same “crime”.
Perhaps these are "quotable"; I don't propose to judge that, but to leave it to the objective filter of whether anyone has quoted them. BD2412 T 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are still operating under the fallacy that if Twitter was allowed people would even considering adding such statements to Wikiquote, which is a tiresome straw-man (and very much against all evidence). But let me ask you the opposite, which is actually relevant. Take, for example, the quote from Mortals and Others by Bertrand Russell, "While genius is individual, sanity is social." Now Google it, and see how many times it was "quoted". Result? Zero times. Was it too "subjective" of me to add that quote by Bertrand Russell, perhaps? It would seem that according to your pseudo-objective criteria, such a quote has no place on Wikiquote, and should thus be removed (unlike whatever Miley Cyrus will say tomorrow, which I'm sure will be "quoted" in several media outlets, and so pass with flying colors your "objective filter"). DanielTom (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of junk quotes that make it through in TV show articles. I would say that the difference between published books and things posted on the Internet is that at least books have to go through the filter of publication. Stuff on Twitter and Facebook goes through no filter at all. That said, after thinking it over, I'm not sure that blocking links to these websites is the best avenue to serve this purpose. BD2412 T 01:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a straw-man: People have not only considered adding tweets that are trivial or even rubbish to Wikiquote articles, they have done so: Evidence may be found here and among the links to Twitter identified above. The criterion of quoting things that are actually quoted is not "pseudo-objective", it is the objective basis for such compendia as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, which expresses the concept in its title.

It has been suggested from time to time that Wikiquote limit itself to only quotations that are famous, like Bartlett's, but that is not the consensus and I do not support it. Contributors are encouraged to make subjective choices, subject to consensus, for including lesser-known statements from widely known, notable works. This broader scope encompasses the example from Mortals and Others, so that example is a bit of a red herring.

Another difference between published books and things posted on the interestnet is, as noted above, their durability. The contents of a social networking site may be rewritten, redacted, or deleted at any time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm totally fine with removing Twitter from the blacklist but keeping Facebook and MySpace blacklisted; Twitter seems to have far fewer layers between the person being quoted and the actual comment, versus Facebook with is more advertising-oriented (and MySpace is MySpace, so screw that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I tend to prefer to avoid "blacklisting" any sites that are not prone to produce merely vandalizing links, I can laughingly agree with your assessment. I generally avoid Facebook and Myspace, despite having accounts on them, and though they probably have some worthwhile comments on them occasionally, I believe Twitter is more likely to produce quoteworthy material. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does blacklisting those sites achieve anything? All it does is prevent a live link. I can still go to one of those sites and copy a quote, giving the source as an unclickable link. That is a verifiable source, indeed more easily verified than a printed book that not everyone can readily access. We could make it a policy that these sites are not reliable and should not be given as references; that would require a proper debate.--Abramsky (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't achieve anything, other than make the sources simply say Twitter + date, with no link to it. There clearly is no consensus to keep this disruptive change. (I guess that means it will be kept anyway?) DanielTom (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the point is to not have quotes from Twitter at all unless they are sourced to some other publication (i.e., unless their notability has been demonstrated by the fact that someone quoted them). BD2412 T 15:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be the consensus here, that only seems to be your opinion. But would you be willing to allow linking to Twitter if one could demonstrate the notability of a certain tweet following your criteria? DanielTom (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's the catch - if the notability of the tweet could be demonstrated by linking to, say, a newspaper article discussing it, why would we need to link to the tweet itself? BD2412 T 14:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if your issue is – as you claim – with the notability of the tweets, and I can demonstrate that a tweet like "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though." was quoted by The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Huffington Post, Salon, and New Statesman, why shouldn't I be able to link it to its primary source (which is after all what Wikiquote is for)? I believe I have already answered your question, viz., "I want to link Dawkins' quotes to their true source, not to some journalist's opinion on why his tweet was offensive, thank you very much." DanielTom (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered this too - "I'm not sure that blocking links to these websites is the best avenue to serve this purpose". I'm really up in the air about it at this point, but would point out that citing to a primary source is still different from linking to that primary source. I can quote the Declaration of Independence on a page and say that the quote comes from that document without providing this link. BD2412 T 17:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to DanielTom's point about linking to the original source of a quote rather than to opinions about it. I myself have removed links to POV essays used as citations when the actual original sources were far more notable than any essays about them (example). However, if the sole reason the source is (arguably) notable is that it provoked a (momentary) reaction from the chattering class then that context seems very relevant.

Further, there needs to be some consideration of the test of time. Professor Dawkins makes it his business to poke people with a sharp stick, and sometimes it produces a yelp. On what basis could one conjecture that any particular jab on Twitter might be remembered and quoted by future generations? The original tweet was five months ago, but I am not aware of any notable source quoting it a month or more after the event. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I of course reject the assumptions of those who have allowed Twitter to remain blacklisted — and believe me, I am restraining myself from giving clear and vigorous elaborations on the hypocrisies involved with those who would play a lot of quite shallow and insincere lip service to the words "freedom of speech" — and do as much as they can get away with to constrain, limit and control that of others in needless and quite detrimental ways. I do not know of twitter being blocked on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project — and if it is — much of my argument and hostility to the asinine practice would apply there as well. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)+ tweaks[reply]
It seems to me that there is no consensus for the block. Does that mean that the block stays or that it does not?--Abramsky (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "no consensus" rule on Wikipedia, which I assume we follow, is that in the absence of consensus regarding a controversial action, things are restored to the way they were before the action took place. In this case, the block is the controversial act, and no consensus would mean that the block must be lifted. BD2412 T 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this thread because I was of two minds on the issue. I still am, but I have formed an opinion on what should be the overriding consideration.
  1. On the one hand, as indicated above and in the linked discussion of WQ:Q, I really do not think we should be citing the chatter and vanity of social networking sites without supporting evidence of quotability. I feel strongly about this, and shudder at the prospect of turning our project into WikiRetweet.
  2. On the other hand, there does not appear to be a strong consensus for that editorial position, and I don't see anyone rushing to expunge the ~300 links noted at the top of the thread. Blacklisting entire sites to enforce editorial judgments would be a questionable proposition even if editorial consensus were clear.
  3. On the third hand, though these sites are sometimes used for spamming, that is not their principal usage. If we blacklist every site that has been used for spamming and promotion then we would have to say goodbye to YouTube, GoogleBooks, and even Wikipedia.
Bottom line:  I still support and will continue to argue for tightening editorial standards for quotability; but the blacklist tool, originally intended specifically for spam, should be reserved for sites that are exclusively and extensively used for abusive or disruptive practices, not for questionable editorial judgments. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed them. I must make it clear that this discussion is in no way a criticism of Cirt, and I have not removed the other sites I added at the same time.--Abramsky (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Application for use of AWB

[edit]

Would someone please grant me the right to use AutoWikiBrowser. Also looks as though that page could do with a little maintenance, there are a few addresses that should be culled. Thanks. It would be great if someone pings me or thanks me for the edit so I know whether I am successful or not. sDrewth 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I have granted AWB access to "sDrewth" (User:Billinghurst) who, as a global Steward, is a highly trusted user. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks, now to do some fixing. sDrewth 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalki is making personal attacks, AGAIN...

[edit]

Everybody, look at [1] - this person, who was at a time an administrator, is verbally attacking other people once more, despite all the warnings. Zarbon —This unsigned comment is by 166.205.55.36 (talk • contribs) .

This of course is the statement of a poorly informed troll impersonator, who seems to be one of the more intermittent vandals of our site. This troll-vandal in one comment declared that I "lost ur sysop rights due to relentless incivility from ur part" — which is of course nonsense. I actually lost it because of suspicions generated by my use of multiple accounts. I was unwilling to alleviate the ignorant and confused assessments of others as to why I might have created them, because I had much more important matters to attend to than those of answering suspicions or explaining much about my perspectives to those who demanded such answers as could be absolutely accepted or rejected, praised or condemned, entirely in accordance to their very limited conceptions of matters. I generally have a very low esteem of such foolish behavior, and though I might hide that fact, I certainly do not deny it. I was willing to lose sysop privileges some years ago, rather than attempt to extensively disclose, deny or lie about far more important matters, in response to their puzzlements and assumptions. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
While not delving into the history of Kalki's adminship or whether the stripping of said status was correct or incorrect, I can firmly state that the cited exchange was in response to a user who unleashed vandalism across multiple pages. I did not then (and do not now) find any fault in what Kalki wrote. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's times like this that I really miss the CheckUser bit. I've blocked the reporting IP, this "report" is worthless. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These vandal accounts really need to be checked, perhaps we should ask at Meta. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we need a checkuser? --~~Goldenburg111 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we don't have enough people to elect one (they would need at least 25 support !votes). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since were on the subject of this Kalki, I find it very stupid of him to liberally overlink articles with his nonsense and claim it is "standard Wiki practice."--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since an obvious vandal-troll IMPOSTER brought up the subject of me with this ridiculous headline some months ago, I consider it somewhat stupid of you to make such allegations as you make here. I had just been preparing a note to post to your own talk page on how Hypertext links to other pages ARE standard devices on MOST wikis, when I noticed your remarks here, and amended my own there slightly. Many people can be encouraged to participate in the wiki when links to ideas are abundant, and ways in which they can contribute to our project become apparent to them in ways they otherwise would not. May awareness and appreciation of MANY ideas truly good and beneficial to all humanity increase on this project and throughout our oft-troubled world. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Although there is no set policy on this topic, there certainly is no prohibition against internal links designed to guide readers to topics of potential interest. I think they are a good idea, and applaud Kalki for doing the work of adding them, and doing a sensible job of it. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are song quotes a violation??

[edit]

Protection

[edit]

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

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

I would suggest heavy protection. I reverted them to before the vandalism began, but I would highly recommend that they be protected from all new users as most of the vandalism is being done by the same sockpuppets from prior. Reverting the edits only triggers more activity from this sockpuppeteer. I would suggest a checkuser again for all the most recent accounts that have vandalised these articles and my talk page as they are all likely one and the same. Please notify me when the protection has been made. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these pages should be protected. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suggest also protecting the article Dragon Ball Z: The World's Strongest. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (3rd request)

[edit]

Since there have already been some sockpuppetry issues at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (3rd request), I have preemptively semi-protected the page against further shenanigans. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has created page User:Kalki/Restrictions in Kalki's namespace and locked it. I don't think that people should create pages in other people's namespaces, let alone lock them. Would anyone object if I moved it to an appropriate place?--Abramsky (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would not. I thought it rude and contemptible when it was created — and definitely feel it presents very false representations of many matters which I would definitely wish to eventually thoroughly repudiate; but considered it a relatively mild abuse of me, compared to other things that user has attempted, or accomplished. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
I agree this should be moved to the User:Cirt namespace or even deleted. Keeping records like this (without further context) could easily be misunderstood. -- Mdd (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Cirt knows that it is rather abusive to keep a subpage of one user, and the user cannot edit the page. Cirt may also be misunderstood about a certain situation and maybe explaining it the wrong way. I would rather see it in Cirt's userpage rather than Kalki. --~~Goldenburg111 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. Page moved to User:Cirt/Kalki Restrictions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My thanks to Mdd (talk · contributions) for having the courtesy to nofify me of this ongoing discussion at my user talk page. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for now finally, after nearly 3 years, removing that egregiously skewed and inaccurate assessment of both my actual activities and of this community's activities from my user space. I sincerely believe that any rationally and ethically competent person would never have created such a thing there in the first place, and can appreciate this as a sign you are perhaps indeed beginning to behave more rationally about some matters. After you had the gall to place them in my user space in such manner back in May of 2011 you have regularly linked to these AS IF they were "authoritative" and "official" decrees, and up until recently no one seems to have paid much attention to my objections to them as both improper and misleading. I thank everyone else here for their comments and concerns, and to you and each and all I close with Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 08:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, this is an authoritative and official decree. -- Cirt (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly "the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account" was the official decision and policy, which I accepted. You seem to be implying that YOUR particularly vile and I believe malicious assessments constituted "community consensus" and official agreement with these, when in fact, you yourself were being criticized even then on the page to which you link, as having made improper impositions upon me, which prompted that crisis in which I had already agreed to edit with only one account. It in no way sanctioned or approved many of your other assertions and actions. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Kalki, stop directing language like "vile" and "malicious" at another editor. You should dispute the premise without discussing the character of the person setting forth that premise. BD2412 T 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this somewhat ironic, because I labelled the assessments "vile" and "dishonest" which I sincerely believe them to be, but I can agree to attempt to be more moderate with my words, despite such actions and assessments as they refer to have been going on for some years now, with little constraint on them, and much constraint on such honesty as I account virtuous, and not vile. But I am aware that others sensibilities can differ from mine, and accept this. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal

[edit]

Could someone block vandal User:‎Blue Shrek, for edit warring if nothing else? This guy keeps vandalizing talk pages, and is apparently only here to cause trouble. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Mdd (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we need a checkuser? Maybe YODO is controlling all of this accounts. Sorry for not reverting Shrek's edits, I was at Walmart :) --~~Goldenburg111 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do, but unfortunately we don't have enough people to elect one (candidates need at least 25 support !votes to be elected). In practice, this means it's currently impossible for anyone to be elected checkuser on Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if we nominated an exceedingly competent admin like User:Ningauble or User:UDScott, and did a bit of neutrally worded publicization that the discussion was occurring, we could garner the requisite numerical participation. BD2412 T 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection request

[edit]

Could someone semi-protect Zoey 101? (Thanks.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal reincarnation

[edit]

I would suggest blocking Jacovinova indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account", or to at least keep an eye on him—this vandal seems to be the most recent reincarnation of the Dragon Ball sock. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me, a Vandal?! Excuse me but fellow Wikiquotions DanielTom (talk · contributions) is making a baseless accusation towards me. I do not even like Dragon Ball Z or anime for that matter. Stephen Gallager 7:38 AM, 01/27/14
Y Done because of obsessive redirects, inserting false information, impersonating known people. -- Mdd (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. His style of comments, edit summaries, and pattern of edits make me almost sure that he is the same vandal as before, but this only a checkuser could confirm. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The direct response here (removed as vandalism) and the one earlier edit of this ip adress (and then 2 October 2012 blocked by EVula for Abusing multiple accounts) confirms these findings. -- Mdd (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Castaneda

[edit]

I believe that there was once a Carlos Castaneda page on this wiki. I just noticed a blank link to it, as I have done on some occasions for some time now. I would have restored it myself save for the unfortunate persistence of opposition to my use of tools which I myself have never abused to simply stifle or silence criticism, as others have sometimes done, and who remain "honorable" admins. Thus I must now request that this page be restored so that I might work on bringing it up to par within the next week or so. In the months to come, may all be ever more blessed with the growth of awareness of truth, including significant truths about the nature and importance of diverse opinions, and not remain merely confined to narrow opinions about truth, which are far too often taken for all anyone needs to know about the nature of some things. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Thank you much, and for already sourcing a quote on it. I will attempt to expand the page significantly within the next week or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, some more cleanup is done to make a brand new start. -- Mdd (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete as much of my account as you can.

[edit]

Please delete as much of my account as you can. ZzZmidnight (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the Wikimedia Forum at Meta, there, the'll take care of your request to delete your account. Cheers! --~~Goldenburg111 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ZzZmidnight: Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be renamed, and almost vanish. However, as you have no edits here except for this request, I believe your best bet would be to simply stop editing. If something is troubling you, you can contact one of WQ's bureaucrats privately, or a steward at Meta. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism in the past weeks

[edit]
The first four comments are moved here from the User talk:Mdd
== ping again ==
Latest Dragon Ball sock: User:Tarackacarakaketaru. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hes not a sock. Do u actually see vandalism coming from him/her?—This unsigned comment is by 166.147.109.74 (talk • contribs) .
He only comes here to harass Zarbon by vandalizing his Dragon Ball articles. His trolling comments and edit summaries also don't help. Oh, and yes, he is a sock. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another sock/vandal: User:Chirukane64. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a sock/vandal. Hmm, no personal attacks! —This unsigned comment is by Chirukane64 (talk • contribs) .
Another obvious sock: ‎Archie's the name! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done user blocked. -- Mdd (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another sock: ‎Calkey. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

[edit]

There is a type of vandalism which is ongoing almost daily for about two weeks now, which requires a more structural solution. There is the following pattern:

  • An apparently new user makes some constructive anti-vandalism like User:Tarackacarakaketaru, and some more or less nonsense remarks on his talk page, and in between starts harassing common users, like here.
  • There are (every time) at least one or more new usernames involved and one or more (new or existing) ip-addresses.

Now since January 17, 2014 I have blocked over 25 accounts/ip addresses (see block log), making a judgement call every time. I would appreciate, that further requests would be filed here on this page, and more structural action would be taken by another administrator. -- Mdd (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate approach, in my opinion, is to mentor this good faith editing user. This user has been following up on the policies, and I would hate to lose Tara by a block, this user is clearly editing in good faith. --~~Goldenburg111 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with u. Taracka is not related to YODO or any of the socks behind the recient vandalism. Would like to ask editors to watch This Is the End, as vandalism is constantly being made there 166.147.117.130 22:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Golden, you are being fooled and trolled by these socks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that multiple ip-addresses and new usernames are working together, which is now for example happening at the This Is the End lemma, see here. Today we are talking about:
And in the past weeks there have been similar situations (and this is going on for years). -- Mdd (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I did not do research on this and even thought about YODO. --~~Goldenburg111 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally thank "everybody" for supporting me! I must be off now, but would like to quote The Notorious B.I.G. before I go: "I'm just an average nigga from Brooklyn, know what I'm sayin'? Niggas gotta... figure out that life shit. Uh!" Taracka

Excuse Me, why in the world am I being accused of being in cahoots with these individuals? Go ahead and CheckUser me, then u will get proof that I am unrelated. —This unsigned comment is by Chirukane64 (talk • contribs) .

New account starts with fake undoing, who immediate known his way around. -- Mdd (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These socks all come from the same place, which is Zarbon's forum. I suggest blocking them all on sight, as they aren't here to do anything constructive; any delay in blocking these trolls will only result in more drama, waste of time, and nonsense edit wars. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done, since there is no other admin around tonight. Mdd (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration of you being the only admin blocking these socks – so it would be very helpful if some other admin could weigh in and give their opinion on the matter. (Once again, these events go to show that Wikiquote really needs a checkuser badly.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is started more for feedback. Two weeks ago I started noticing (here), that we are being tricked in the beginning, and this keeps returning. -- Mdd (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind people that this vandalism has indeed been going on for many years, and that these socks always make apparent good edits just to confuse admins. If it was up to me, I'd block them on sight, as they all come from the same forum to vandalize the articles edited by Zarbon, and indeed they keep harassing him even today at Wikipedia. Zarbon, you may want to give your opinion here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Zarbon recently did commented on this matter. -- Mdd (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just locked two dozen accounts since this is currently a crosswiki issue (this vandal has gone crosswiki) I've also done some local rangeblocks, please notify me if there's any side effect (though I'm pretty sure there won't). --Vituzzu (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this action (see also this comment). There however seems to be the problem that these person(s) keep returning under new ip-addresses. -- Mdd (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)/13:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we need an IP-Exemption-er hear? I'll volunteer to be one. --~~Goldenburg111 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can already add people to that group, per Special:ListGroupRights. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdd, is it okay if can receive IP Exemption rights? I, most probably, revert nearly all the IP vandals here. --~~Goldenburg111 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The control op IP contributions is much appreciated. However, I would prefer if block requests for (IP) vandals would be filled here, as stated in my first comment. -- Mdd (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your decision, and I am not hurt in anyway. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 01:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sick and tired of this person harassing me and following my contributions only to revert or vandalize much of my efforts. Additionally, this person attempts to impersonate my user name or generally pretend to come from my very inactive forum from about 7 years ago. This has been going on forever now, maybe over 10 years of pestering and gibberish and it's cross-wiki on all the sister projects. I have compiled a list of over 400 usernames attached to this person and apparently, this user has no intention of stopping. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated; please protect my talk page and the articles I contributed to and listed prior. If there is a way to track all IP's attached to this person; difficult as it may be, a permanent block is very useful. However, there is currently a discussion about this person and their multiple accounts on wikipedia and the attached information that may prove useful: Admin noticeboard for sock accounts. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated. - Zarbon (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this link. This (again) confirms that this is a cross-wiki problem, which is going on for year. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed previous discussion about this on Wikiquote have been in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2009, and 2013; And in between about Zarbon (his 2007-08 block log), the 2007 discussion and a short 2012 discussion; which can put some things in perspective... -- Mdd (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to adopt Wikipedia policy on multiple accounts.

[edit]

As Kalki pointed out in his recent RfA, Wikiquote has no specific policy page establishing a mandate against editing from multiple accounts. The Wikipedia policy with respect to this issue is thorough and long-established, providing both the rationales for prohibiting editing from multiple accounts as a general matter, and the means and circumstances by which such editing is permissible (for example, editing from a clearly designated "backup account" when working from a public computer). I therefore propose to adopt the language of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in its entirety, subject only to modifications for replacing instances of "Wikipedia" with "Wikiquote". Cheers! BD2412 T 14:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi protect Socrates

[edit]

This has been the third time the page has been vandalized. Two vandals here, one vandal vandalized this page two times while a new IP Address has just vandalized it. I would like the Socrates page to be semi-protected from further vandalism. Thank you. --~~Goldenburg111 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necessary, there doesn't seem to be a pattern vandalism for this page, or systematic disruption. It's normal for pages of famous figures to suffer occasional vandal edits. A good way to deal with them is to watchlist such pages and check for new edits, reverting if necessary, as you've just done. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your right Daniel, I'll withdrawn this. --~~Goldenburg111 23:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please protect Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup, since it has been suffering heavy disruption https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:WikiProject_Weekly_Cleanup&action=history --~~Goldenburg111 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC

A page that needs protecting again is Muhammad, otherwise we will keep seeing devout IPs removing sourced quotes (the page's protection expired a month ago or so, perhaps it should be protected again for a whole year). ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done for both pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

[edit]

Is it okay if I reinstate this edit which was reverted afterwards by Abramsky (talk · contributions)? IMO it was a minor formatting issue and I had already moved the interwikis and categories to the /Header page. I also took out the Simple English Wikiquote with that move though, since it was closed, but please do reinstate that interwiki link if you still think it's appropriate. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think moving categories and interwikis to a to an <includeonly> block on a transcluded subpage is fine. Some were already there. Abramsky may not have been familiar with how this works, but the same sort of structure is also used at the Village pump. Regarding the Simple English Wikiquote, we do not need, and I believe we should not have, links to defunct projects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 22 - 25 February 2014

[edit]

The layout available in Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 22, 2014 will have to be placed in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 22, 2014 by an admin, as it is currently locked to general editing. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this urgent? Maybe we can ask a steward to do it. (I don't believe these pages should be locked at all.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat urgent, and needed for the current QOTD, but I don't think it is excessive to lock it, though occasionally it does get locked before I have been able to do a layout. I am just briefly checking in right now, to see how this goes, and am preparing to leave again for at least several hours within the next half hour or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a steward, but apparently it's not their job to do such edits; some WQ admins were notified by email, though. (BTW, when does the main page update the QOTD? Is it midnight GMT? Here it's already 22 Feb.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. I guess it is, the main page isn't showing the QOTD today. I'll try annoying some steward again. This is a non controversial move.[reply]
Hi, I was contacted by DanielTom and asked to carry out the necessary edit. While I recognize the importance of an up-to-date Main page as the welcoming page of the project, I am a bit uncomfortable in carrying out the edit, as it is a bit outside of the normal duties carried out by stewards (we mainly deal with emergencies in the sense of vandalism, spamming, and that sort of thing, rather than editorial matters). I have instead emailed every administrator here, hoping that maybe one of the usually not so active ones is at the computer and sees the message (I have emailed all but User:Jni, User:MosheZadka, User:Nanobug, User:Quadell all of who have no listed email) and can carry out the required edit. Let's see if we get any replies :) Snowolf How can I help? 00:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done Mdd (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks Mdd, Snowolf. Sorry about the flood.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A repeat of this procedure is needed, and the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 23, 2014 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 23, 2014. When I had last checked the page had not been locked. I know that the lock doesn't always kick in automatically, but perhaps it would be a good idea to reduce the protection on these pages from two days in advance to simply the current day's page, which is all that s actually necessary. That would nearly eliminate the likelihood of such incidents in the future. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done Mdd (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another such operation is necessary for the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 24, 2014‎ to be placed into the project page Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 24, 2014. I have already checked and the 25th is also already locked, so it to will have to be moved, whenever I complete work on that. I will try to do today, and perhaps also attempt to catch up at the 26th, which is not yet locked. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 25, 2014‎‎ is also now available to be moved into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 25, 2014‎‎. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done Mdd (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have already posted the layout for the 26th now, so it is all set. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image discussion (aka Cirt vs. Kalki)

[edit]

I would like to ask any interested admins to chime in at the discussions happening on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 27, 2014 or Talk:Main Page and the VP. I know that much discussion has been held, but we do not appear to have reached any kind of consensus. And I am growing increasingly weary of the war that Cirt appears to be intent on waging against Kalki. I do not always agree with Kalki and I do not always disagree with Cirt. But this seemingly never ending battle is the kind of thing that drives users away - and may be the kind of thing that eventually even drives me away (and I love Wikiquote and would miss it dearly). Can we try to at least restore a semblance of sanity here? It's become almost an embarrassment for the site. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree respectfully with the way UDScott (talk · contributions) has framed this. I will of course abide by community consensus. UDScott is correct that four images is not excessive at times, though at other times it is. Per Wikiquote:Image use policy, images must be directly relevant to the quotes. Images should not be tangentially relevant. Wikiquote:NPOV applies as well. I will disengage further from these Main Page subpages for a while -- however we should all make sure the Main Page conforms to site policies including Wikiquote:Image use policy and Wikiquote:NPOV. Also, I was previously unaware that one single user gets to create the Quote of the Day subpages for our website. I thought the community was allowed to contribute to this process, and not have it dictated to us by one user? -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the overall most active editor on this project since its inception in 2003, I have long taken on many forms of actual work others have not, not only in creation of the QOTD layouts, but hundreds of major article pages, and when I was an admin of being clearly the most active vandal fighter of all the admins. Your primary involvement, so far as I have observed, is in harassing certain people or contributing a few apparently snide endeavors as you have occasionally created, (such as the Campaign for "santorum" neologism, Targeted killing and Donkey punch pages — though that was eventually reduced in its rather crude and often graphic contents, by community consensus, and moved to the generally less objectionable "Sexual slang" page), as well as a few other pages or contributions to pages which have usually rather obviously seemed intended to deride certain rightly or wrongly unpopular individuals or groups.
I actually believe there are many contemptible farces and forms of fraudulence that have long gone on here, that undermine and betray the fundamental founding concepts of wiki processes which are far fouler and detrimental in some ways than the assaults of obvious trolls and vandals, including some of the "policies" on the above mentioned pages which I believe were devised very specifically to reduce the options and rights of general editors and empower the most OBNOXIOUS of people in contemptible ways which go beyond those appropriate to ANY Wikimedia wiki. Some of these have been devised by a few people within the past couple of years, to effectively eliminate many options which had existed here for years, and were they actually accepted AS IF they were anything but contemptibly unjust farces would effectively subjugate most editors to the whims of the most dictatorially oppressive and suppressive users who seek to constrain, control and limit the options of those who actually are most interested in contributing to the wiki. Many things have kept me too busy to address all the issues thoroughly, but there is much more I intend to eventually point out on this matter, and it will probably take me some time to present many of the reasons why I assert some of these involve despicable betrayals and neglect of the principles with which Wikiquote and the Wikimedia projects and most wikis generally, were founded. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
It would be nice if we could have multiple users be able to contribute to the Quote of the Day layout page, instead of just one (1) user dictate it to the community. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a very few occasions over the years some people have suggested layout options, which I have respectfully considered, but I believe that there has actually been little or no active contentions about my layouts over all these years, save those few which you have occasionally been involved in, and especially those you have made abundantly and persistently in recent days in drastic and presumptively dictatorial alterations, usually with numerically and not visually gauged reductions which resulted in sometimes very poorly aligned and balanced visual fields, as well as massive reductions of standard wikilinks and notably relevant imagery. MOST of your activity in regard to my activities has been in what I have perceived to be little more than further means to harass me, as I believe many people are aware you have rather clearly done in many ways for many years now. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple comments by different users at Village Pump including the October 2013 thread at : Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images_make_mobile_site_UNREADABLE. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Please see this thread at Village Pump, from October 2013: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images_make_mobile_site_UNREADABLE. I did not start that thread. Clearly this is an issue that is not an opinion solely held by myself, but by multiple others in the community as well. This is not a conflict between two users, this is an issue of one user dictating and having carte blanche control of image use on the Main Page in violation of Wikiquote:Image use policy and Wikiquote:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other users have complained about image use on Wikiquote: Other users that have complained about image use on the Main Page and on wikiquote pages, in multiple threads at Village Pump, include:

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

This is not just my view. It is the view of multiple members of our Wikiquote community, including myself, that images not directly relevant used on the Main Page and on other Wikiquote pages is inappropriate. It is the view expressed by multiple Wikiquote users in multiple threads on Village Pump that too many images on the Main Page especially not directly relevant images is not helpful. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are users who have occasionally criticized a few of my presentation decisions over the years, and there are some who can relied upon to slant and exaggerate things in particular ways that focus ONLY on what criticisms of me they can gather. I continue to assert that aside from a very few people, some of whom can be regularly relied upon to criticize either me generally, or the use of images generally, most of my presentation work has been praised by others. As Cirt has begun to actively seek further comment from some of those most reliably hostile to me, including those who have done little or no actual editing beyond criticism of me, in the days and weeks ahead, I shall begin to seek out comments of those who have contributed much more than many of these to this site, and have generally approved my work, and the use of images. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a new thread to Village Pump. Others commented there. I haven't commented another reply there since then. The October 2013 thread at : Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images_make_mobile_site_UNREADABLE was started by a different user I most certainly did not "seek out". -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed and referred to your comment to Macspaunday (talk · contributions) at his user page inviting him to become more involved in the image discussions now occurring , though I recognize he probably needs little prompting or notice, as he has clearly been one of the users most actively derisive of the use of images generally, and seems most resentful of me in particular, as an active advocate of their use. His primary "contributions" to the site seem to have indeed been his massive and extensive removal of images that had existed on many pages for years, in a massive effort to eliminate many images from pages. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He had first posted to my user talk page about the image issue. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is understandable. You both seem to have some notably similar character traits. I hold no hostility to those who merely disagree with me — I only have hostility to some of the acts and attitudes of those who seek to constrain and limit the rights and options and potentials of everyone in ways I find deplorable. May you both eventually discover greater blessings in life than deriding the beauties of humanity and nature. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on this discussion (not a response to any specific message): I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm always always dismayed by the layout and choice of images on quote of the day, but I don't post complaints about each one because I know a complaint would be futile. I don't have the standing here that would make a difference in this discussion, but I tend to doubt that Cirt is the root cause of the difficulty. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Macspaunday's comment: I too sometimes have issues with the choice of images used (and occasionally comment on this, as I did here), but in this case, the post I made was about what I believe to be the imposition of a rule by Cirt that limits the amount of images to 2 for these pages. Multiple times (for example twice on this page), Cirt has stated that two images is what the limit should be. While that's a fine opinion to have, I do not believe it is one endorsed by the community as of yet. The fact that he then proceeded to enforce this limit is what I objected to. Further, additional efforts to limit things like image size and number of wikilinks gave the impression that Cirt was targeting the work of Kalki (especially given their prior contentious history).

Whether or not these limitations are a good thing is beside the point - were they fully discussed and endorsed by the community, then great, have at it. But I have witnessed a pattern of harassment of Kalki by Cirt and I've grown weary of it. On the flip side, I often disagree with Kalki and am also weary of the long digressions he is prone to deliver when writing an essay that often refuses to address direct questions. And I do have an issue with the fact that Kalki is seemingly not willing to alter behavior based on community consensus. But, in this case, I do not believe that consensus has yet been achieved. Until that point, I will vigorously defend Kalki or any other user that appears to be subject to almost spiteful editing that oversteps the bounds of proper behavior on the site. The bottom line is that yes we should enforce Wikiquote:Image use policy, which provides guidance on the selection of quotes (to ensure that the selected image is appropriate), but we do not as yet have any policy that limits the number of images. In the discussions, a rough limit of 4 images for the Quote of the Day pages has been discussed (and even agreed to as a guide by Kalki), but no hard and fast rule has been adopted by the community - and such limits should not be imposed until one is. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your very lucid assessments, even those I disagree with. Though people can disagree substantially on many matters, I believe the means of presenting diverse views should not needlessly be constrained. I am resolved to address this issue and some others more thoroughly in the weeks ahead. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents on this meta-discussion (which is not about the subject of those discussions, but the conduct of the discussants) –
  1. Cirt has engaged in tendentious editing of protected pages in a manner that is that is unbecoming of an administrator. Administrators should display a greater appreciation of what does and does not constitute an established consensus (specifically, regarding image quantity), and must scrupulously avoid using false color of authority.
  2. Kalki has used extensive tactics of obfuscation that disrupt the formation and expression of consensus. (Perhaps the most disruptive of these tactics is argumentum ad hominem rising to the level of incivility, but not least obfuscatory is the hypocritical defense of exclusive control over Main page images on the basis of freedom for all.)
Both of these contributors have done very good work for Wikiquote, and both have repeatedly engaged in poor conduct. I am not entirely sure what is the best course of action for dealing with the bad blood between these editors; but when it has reached the point that a longstanding pillar of the community like UDScott feels driven away and a regular contributor like Macspaunday feels discussion is futile, then it has clearly gone too far.

I encourage both parties to undertake and evince major reform of their own conduct. Otherwise I will recommend imposing some sort of remedy even if it is not the best of all possible outcomes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate many valid and admirable aspects of your assessments, though I do and must actually disagree rather strongly with some, and believe many people involved here have at times used various "tactics of obfuscation that disrupt the formation and expression of consensus" to various extents, and I believe that I am hardly the primary example of deliberately doing that, though I would acknowledge that I might easily seem that to some, on casual examination of many diverse contentions. I am confident that there are many more matters we could agree on than those we strongly disagree on, and I actually believe that I could probably say the same of even someone I believe to be so regularly abusive of certain abilities as I believe Cirt to be, though are clear and extreme differences on some matters might long prevent many of these from becoming easily apparent to many, including ourselves. I believe that I am far more willing to recognize the potentials and actualities of deficiencies and errors on my own part than most people realize, often because of the intricacies and complications of the ways I do many things, and the ways they do as well. In coming months, probably mostly on my own user pages, I hope to provide many clearer indications of my own attitudes and inclinations in regard to many diverse things, and examples of my own experiences which might help others understand how and why many of these attitudes and inclinations have developed and strengthened, in various ways, over many years, and indeed, from a very early age. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Cirt in response to Ningauble
  1. Thank you, Ningauble (talk · contributions), I should have sought out ways to discuss these pages, first, before editing protected pages, even to remove images which I felt violated our site policies.
  2. I agree with you, Ningauble, that it is unfortunate that our Main Page Quote of the Day process seems to be unfairly controlled by one (1) individual with regards to both quote selection and final layout of quote formatting.
  3. It would be nice to have a more collaborative process and discussion, before quotes appeared on the Main Page, as to how they will be presented.
  4. I have asked more specifically at User talk:Ningauble, where this discussion occurs, if it even does at all, as to how to collaborate on talk pages about Main Page Quote of the Day formatting and layout, prior to these quotes appearing on the Main Page.

-- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break

[edit]

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

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

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

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that most of your opinions on image use are ones that I share (albeit maybe not to the level that you have) - especially pertaining to the selection of proper images. But the implementation of this is what I disagree with, particularly the number of images. Also, I do not always agree that the only possible image that should be used is a picture of the author. But by and large, I do agree that the images used on the Quote of the Day pages are not always the best or even appropriate. But I would rather discuss such disagreements and arrive at a consensus than to impose rules that are not fully discussed or blessed by the community. Were this merely a discussion about the content of the images, simply enforcing the Wikiquote:Image use policy should help, but I do not know of any official policy that limits the number of images to be used on such pages. The rough guideline of 4 images has been discussed (and even, ironically enough, endorsed by Kalki as a guide), but not yet made official policy. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe 4 images is a good target to aim at, as a guideline, though not as an absolute rule, and believe it usually can be achieved, and have done this on most of my layouts lately — but there are some cases where image imbalances make it aesthetically desirable to sometimes use more, or only 3 or even 2, and in all cases I have increasingly aimed at a relatively simple layout, with clearly relevant images, and even though I often can envision some far more extensive ones, I have suppressed my impulses to use them. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for a change of QOTD autolock specifications

[edit]
Opening up this section for editing will display the existing and suggested layouts better.

Probably because of some glitches in previous software, until recently the "auto-locking" of the QOTD layout often did not kick in until I deliberately triggered it to do so, with rather simple procedures, or someone else accidentally did. It seems to be more reliably locking things lately, two days ahead of time, and I have not always had QOTD layouts selected when the pages have been locked. Currently the 3rd and 4th of March are not generally editable; at this point, I have not yet even selected a quote for the third, as I realized earlier that the page was already locked, and I shifted focus to the 4th, while it was not yet locked, and selected a quote and developed a layout for it, which I completed before it locked.

If an admin would open the auto protect specifications at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Protect from the current ones, which are:

*[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|-1 days}}]] *'''[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}]]''' *[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+1 days}}]] *[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+2 days}}]] ---- {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|-1 days}}}} {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}}} {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+1 days}}}} {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+2 days}}}}

Simply removing the bottom 2 lines in each section, would result in:

*[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|-1 days}}]] *'''[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}]]''' ---- {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|-1 days}}}} {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}

I believe this would protect ONLY the current day and the previous day's layout — but not protect them 2 days ahead of time, as it has recently been doing more reliably, but which probably isn't necessary.
Though not actually troublesome, even the protection of the previous day's layout could probably be removed, as not really necessary, as the layout would no longer be displaying on the main page, and is not likely to be vandalized. That would leave the autolock only for current day arranged like this:

*'''[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}]]''' ---- {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}

I have a few other things to do for a few hours, but will probably get back to selecting a quote for the 3rd soon, and whenever I finish with a layout, if no one has made such changes, or for some reasons objects to them, I will simply post it to "Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/March 3, 2014" and post a notice here that it needs to be moved to "Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 3, 2014" as I have done previously in such incidents. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Actually, I think protection a day in advance is more important than a day in arrears, particularly as midnight approaches and it becomes the current day. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually agree with that assessment, but wasn't actually emphasizing its propriety, because overall the protections have rarely been needed, and attempts at vandalizing these pages had rarely occurred. I am just back from doing a few things elsewhere, and must be leaving again within a few hours, at least for another hour or so, and will certainly select and finish up something for the 3rd and post some indications of that here, before I leave. I do believe that alterations to the template to simply do a day in advance and the current day would be a good idea, and better than the current excess. Thank you. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done selections up to the 5th of the month, and deliberately triggered the "auto-lock" once I was finished, so these pages are now set. I might attempt to do a few more QOTD selections today, at various times, but I would appreciate an alteration of specifications at the template page, so that in the future I won't need to keep at least 2 days ahead of things, but only one. For that, the layout would simply be:

*'''[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}]]''' *[[Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+1 days}}]] ---- {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y}}}} {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|+1 days}}}}

Though I am unlikely to fall behind any time soon now, alterations to the template will certainly be appreciated, and reduce the likelihood of needing to make further notices like these in the future. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Removed protection of second day in advance, which seems to be what is causing inconvenience. Cascading protection will now apply to the current date ± one day in each direction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 3, 2014

[edit]

There is now a QOTD and layout prepared at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/March 3, 2014 which needs to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 3, 2014. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Mdd (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I noticed your edit, but was too busy with some other things to make note of it right away. I expect to be very busy on the internet in the next month or so, and not primarily here, though I do expect this will always be one of my favorite places to do quote work. I might attempt to do a few more days of QOTD selections today, so I don't fall behind again, as I get caught up in many other projects. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 26 March 2014

[edit]

I did fall behind in this one — I was juggling various ideas for several quotes for days, and I actually spent a few hours seeking at the commons, good images I might use with the "early leaf a flower" of golden hues, of which Frost speaks in the QOTD selected (among other ideas), and didn'tt find quite what I was looking for, but the best I could come up with seems okay, and is presented at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/March 26, 2014, but it needs to be moved to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 26, 2014. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Mdd (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much — I am trying to throw something together now for tomorrow's QOTD before leaving… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more protection requests

[edit]

Perhaps Ketuanan Melayu should be semi-protected. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done: This is (re-)protected for a month. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki.png

[edit]

Please change the text to point to the new file linked to at the bottom of the page instead, as the current listed one is a redlink. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the redlink causing a problem? The statement that it was copied from there appears to be correct, and would be incorrect if a different location were substituted. (The exact history of the logo is obscured by trans-wiki moves and by deletion of originals and copies. Cf. File:Ncwikiquote2.png, from before the transparent backgound feature was added. Early discussion is archived at User:Neolux/Archive.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see then. If you think it's not necessary, then it can be left alone, I trust your judgment on that. Anyway, I dug a little further into the Special:WhatLinksHere report for this image and found this discussion about media files on Wikiquote in general. I was wondering, if Wikiquote decides to disallow fair use media (I think it allows fair use text as quotes) then I can ask a MediaWiki developer to re-point the "Upload file" button in the sidebar to automatically point to Commons instead so that regular Wikiquote users cannot upload files. I can also ask them to implement a change disallowing media uploads by administrators too, but I don't think that will be a popular change. How about it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Upload file" button in the sidebar currently does link directly to Commons. I imagine this could be confusing to people who stumble upon it. It used to display a page stating that uploads are disabled here, with a link to Commons. (Wikiquote disabled local uploads years ago.) I think that older "soft redirect" was much more clear and helpful, and have no idea why it was changed globally. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LTA abused IPs

[edit]

Hello. A bunch of recent accounts by the resident LTA are on the IPs 66.240.76.221 and 166.205.48.146. Blocking those for some period of time longer than the autoblocks of accounts could help prevent some disruption. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ajraddatz. The Wikiquote community is aware of this... Please see meta:User:Goldenburg111/Reports/Wikiquote Vandalism Statics, all has been recorded their... --~~Goldenburg111 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request concerns

-- Mdd (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

[edit]

Hello. I requested bots at Wikiquote:Bots. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 01:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed unblocking of User:Daniel Tomé

[edit]

This is a question to admins previously uninvolved in this issue. User:DanielTom has asked that I unblock the account registered under his former username, User:Daniel Tomé, on the grounds that he has not used that account in any way that would merit a block. There are hypothetical reasons why a user could legitimately have access to an acknowledged second account (some of these are outlined at the draft Wikiquote:Sock puppetry page, such as having a backup account from which to notify the community of one's main account is compromised). I am inclined to unblock as requested, unless there is some overriding concern that would counter so doing. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to unblocking this account. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "user" (I) is already unblocked, but this account (which was renamed to "DanielTom", the name I currently use) is not. I don't plan on using the "Daniel Tomé" account. The one time I did use it, after the rename, was accidental, and I replaced its signature with mine as soon as I noticed it, a few minutes later. At the time, I was still used to logging in with "Daniel Tomé", hence my "mistake". But even if the account had 100 edits, it would still not be a sock. Although the account was blocked under the excuse that it was a "sock", it was never really explained to me, how using my real name, or an account whose user and talk pages redirected to my "DanielTom" account, could fool anyone. Of course, I know the real reasons why it was blocked, but that I am not allowed to speak of. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is relevant is the fact that it is an acknowledged account, from which no edits have intentionally been made, and for which there is no indication that the registrant would in fact use it in violation of any policy of this site. BD2412 T 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding hypothetical uses mentioned by BD2412, the reason for this request does not seem to be an intent to use the account at all, but rather stems from a feeling that that the block insults the dignity of the user. The underlying reason for the block appears to have been some undignified conduct by the user at another wiki, with multiple accounts being a side issue of little significance. At the same time, the blocking administrator has also exhibited undignified conduct in the case.

    I find myself balancing a strong sense that respect for human dignity is fundamental to ethical conduct, on the one hand, with a strong sense that preoccupation with life's little indignities is the ultimate"vanity of vanities", on the other. On balance, because helping someone to "get over yourself" is supremely difficult to accomplish, and in the absence of any credible risk to the project, I favor compassionate relief of the user's evident distress. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well said (although I should add that the original blocking admin has contacted me through other channels to offer to lift this block). As there is unanimity on this point, the block is lifted. BD2412 T 15:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ningauble: if there is any valid reason, under any interpretation, of any policy, to keep this account blocked, bring it forward, I would like to see it. I say, there is none, and further state that the block was part of a harassment campaign, that even escalated to death threats, and to which I would oppose, regardless of who was the user behind the account. That the account is mine, in the case at hand, is no excuse for my having to hear and tolerate lectures on "human dignity", which is the least of my concerns. You must have noticed by now, that I often do oppose similar abuses, by admins, against many other defenseless users. Needless to say, you can "favor compassionate relief" all you want, if that makes you feel noble. There is, of course, a valid concern, which I never concealed, that "Daniel Tomé" is my real name. Publilius Syrus warns us, that "A good reputation is more valuable than money," and I myself would like to know, if an editor such as myself, who has contributed extensively to this project, should have any right, in the present and future age, to the preservation of his name, and reputation, and if he should leave it, to be forever and completely tarnished with impunity? It would seem so, even though I've always made clear that the account "Daniel Tomé" is mine, and have never misused it in any way. Although the Gospel commands us to forgive offenses, the Holy Spirit also tells us, that we should take extreme care in the preservation of our good name, and reputation: Curam habe de bono nomine. I want to do both. Not just the laws of Christianity, but those of Nature, and of Reason, compel me to preserve my reputation, and to save it from the most outrageous offenses, that can be made to a member of society. Disse. J.A.M. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure why you seem to be challenging Ningauble when his comments were in favor of lifting the block, as you requested. BD2412 T 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        There are two ways to interpret the time honored advice to protect one's reputation. The first is to provide a reason to conduct oneself in an upstanding manner, if a reason is needed, by appealing to self interest. The second is to provide an excuse for defensive or aggressive conduct, if an excuse is needed, by asserting self interest. Perhaps the reason BD2412 is seeking for this outburst lies in one or the other of these interpretations.

        Anyway, I plead guilty to the charge of committing random acts of homiletics. I try not to do it too often. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

When I accessed a user's contributions page (located at /wiki/Special:Contributions/[IP address/username]), I was taken to the page https://toolserver.org/%7Eluxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=[IP address/username]&blocks=true&lang=. The site says "Please fix your source link. New Address: http://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/" Therefore I believe the link on this wiki is obsolete and going to be replaced soon. Please fix it. Quenhitran (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The targeted guc tool is not currently operational. "That tool might not have a web interface, or it may currently be disabled." I am not sure what is going on, but it isn't fixable on this end. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be working now, at least intermittently. It has been added to the Sp-contributions-footer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki pages need updating

[edit]
Y Fixed reference to the wrong wiki. For future reference: please be very careful when editing the MediaWiki interface, and always fully test the results. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014‎
Thanks for double checking. -- Mdd (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<table id="sp-contributions-footer-anon" class="plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system " style="">
<tr>
<td class="mbox-image">[[Image:User-info.svg|40px|User info]]</td>
<td class="mbox-text" style="font-size: 90%;"><div>
This is the [[w:Help:User contributions|contributions page]] for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical [[w:IP address|IP address]]. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may [[Special:Userlogin|create an account or log in]] to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. <br /> [[//toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=$1 WHOIS] '''·'''
[//www.robtex.com/ip/$1.html rDNS] '''·'''
[//www.dnsstuff.com/tools#traceroute/type=ipv4&&value=$1&& Traceroute] '''·'''
[//toolserver.org/~overlordq/scripts/checktor.fcgi?ip=$1 Tor check] '''·'''
[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&ip=$1 Current blocks] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=$1&blocks=true Global contributions]] '''·'''
[[[w:Regional Internet registry|RIR]]s: [http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/$1.html America] '''·'''
[https://www.ripe.net/fcgi-bin/whois?searchtext=$1 Europe] '''·'''
[https://www.afrinic.net/cgi-bin/whois?query=$1 Africa] '''·'''
[http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext=$1 Asia-Pacific] '''·'''
[http://www.lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois?lg=EN&query=$1 Latin America/Caribbean]]
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>

However, you can use images uploaded to [[commons:|Wikimedia Commons]] in the English Wikiquote...
...comply with the [[commons:Commons:Criteria for inclusion|Commons inclusion guidelines]], though you will need to create an account there...

to 

However, you can use images uploaded to [[commons:Special:MyLanguage/Main Page|Wikimedia Commons]] on the English Wikiquote...
...comply with the [[commons:Commons:Criteria for inclusion|Commons inclusion guidelines]]...

Change reasoning: Add support for localization in case non-English speakers have a different language setting in their preferences, and remove "though you will need to create an account there" since SUL has (mostly) been finalized. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current bot request.

[edit]

Hi everybody. We currently has a a request at Wikiquote:Bots for bots permissions. Please update the mediawiki board so more people can participate in this request. --Goldenburg111 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done - the count has been updated. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Goldenburg111 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets

[edit]

I would appreciate it if the following 2 or 3 gadgets from English Wikipedia could be added to Wikiquote:

and maybe

In my opinion, a few more gadgets would not make the currently rather short list at Special:Gadgets so long it could be confusing to users. Thanks in advance,    FDMS  4    16:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some persisting personal attack

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know local practices in dealing with personal attacks but that's enough IMHO. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I advise admins to review Vituzzu's "contributions" to this project, which besides non-existent, are only contemptible attempts at manipulating and influencing WQ's decision making from Meta, and often consist of provocative trollish sarcastic comments, which apparently no one can respond in kind, lest it offends this travesty of a steward. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here new personal attacks, again I ask you why do you always *need* to insult other people. There's no reason for such a strong verbal violence. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vituzzu made "personal attacks" of his own against me: "why do you *always* need to insult other people?" "Please don't lie." Need I make any comment? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not personal attacks, a personal attack is not "something you dislike" is a comment about the person rather then its deed. I said you almost *always* attack other people and you're saying something which is untrue. While travesty (of anything) etc are definitely insults. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I believe that you both need some thicker skin - I don't really see that either of you has done anything that rises to the level of a personal attack - until this discussion. I suggest everyone just calms down a bit rather than continue this. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he doesn't actually think mine are personal attacks ;)
Anyway worksforme, fighting SEO and trolling on hundreds of wikis is an unattainable result I don't look for.
--Vituzzu (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do think yours are personal attacks. Not just calling me a liar. You stated repeatedly that I "*always* need to insult other people". That is the very definition of a personal attack. You don't know me from Adam, yet you claim that I "*always* need to insult other people"? How did you come to know what I "need"? Not even my mother, bless her heart, would say something as shameful as that. And when did you become a psychologist, to evaluate my needs from afar, behind an anonymous username? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, Mr. Steward. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, give it a rest. The discussion, such as it is, is not likely to end in any positive way. So do us all a favor and just keep your distance from each other as much as possible. When that is not possible, please try to remain civil. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously DanielTom I didn't mean to imply any "psychological" need. I'm not kidding, I'm pretty sure you tend to make a personal affair out of anything onwiki, then overreacting with flows of verbal violence, but still I never postulate anything. Maybe it's a matter of language but by "need" I didn't mean at all what did you understand. Related to this misunderstanding you then have my most sincere apologies. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(You said it repeatedly, and emphasized "need". I am happy to accept your apologies; believe it or not, I don't like editing under the constant threat of being blocked. I am also sorry if I sometimes seem too harsh, but I do think stewards should be much more careful, serious, and impartial in their comments.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really have a hard time understanding why repeated requests for any and all to desist from this continuing discussion are being ignored. I've personally wasted too much time on it already and will go on to more productive use of my time. I am truly finding it easier to talk to my young children (even though they too often display the need to always get in the last word). For the last time, my take on the situation is that all should just "walk away" and that there really is not anything here worth comin down hard on, other than a persistence in keeping the disagreement alive. Let it go, I beg you. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdd - Sorry, I got a little aggravated. I'll leave it as it is.
@UDScott - If I you are referring to me as "I am truly finding it easier to talk to my young children", take a look at my Meta userpage and you'll find a picture of me ;) --~ Goldenburg111 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to all in this argument who just can't seem to let it go (similar to my children who are 6 or under). ~ UDScott (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, I'm a parent with 7 children (two of them are young, 10 and 12), and 6 grandchildren, and I don't find it hard to understand what's happening here. This AN report was not filed by an ordinary user, but by a superuser, entrusted with the highest level of privilege in the WMF community (higher than that is only developer under WMF authority). DanielTom has, shall we say, "issues with authority." I.e, he's normal for a male of teenage years, and some females as well, and this often continues into later life.
Vituzzu has a remarkably thin skin. He is a mindreader, it's part of how he does his job, he is always looking for "promotional intent" with "spammers." Police often become jaded in this way, it is why we normally restrain police with civil authority and review boards, and don't give police authority to punish.
Vituzzu makes up "personal attack" when there isn't one, and when I voted against him as a steward, because of how he had treated DanielTom, indef blocking him on meta for a mild negative general comment about stewards, he responded by threatening me. So I have the same concern as DanielTom, it's a general process concern, why does the global community tolerate this?
There is nothing to do here, beyond notice that this particular disruptive posting, inviting comment about him, was initiated by Vituzzu, and so was the entire fuss over User:Augusto De Luca, globally, creating that train wreck of a request for deletion. That user was not violating any policies, but did create a (false) appearance of "spambot," and Vituzzu went on the attack, and, note, underneath it was a personal attack on Augusto De Luca and any SPA interested in that photographer. And, then, anyone who questions Vituzzu's deletions or proposed deletions.
There may have been promotional intent on the part of De Luca and the others globally locked (5 accounts total), SPAs often have a special interest, and SPAs typically promote a point of view, but promotional intent, itself, is not contrary to policy. The steward doesn't actually understand policy, why should he? He knows what's best, and, you can see it here, he believes that his actions are inviolable writ, his global locks are permanent and unchangeable. And if anyone points out that his actions are contrary to policy, he calls them "wikilawyers." Because it is recent, I'll point to one personal attack on Wikiversity, shown in my response. Now, Scott, indeed, let's move along. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main Page

[edit]

Can an admin remove the interwikis from the Main Page since they have already been added to Wikidata? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dexbot

[edit]

Shouldn't this bot be given a flag? It is currently flooding the Recent changes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an open request at Wikiquote:Bots#User:Dexbot, if a bureaucrat wants to flag it. --Rschen7754 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this bot running before being approved? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been flagged by a bureaucrat. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:John F. Lewis: Wow, I didn't see your message until I clicked edit, gr... :p --~ Goldenburg111 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Called an edit conflict - It's annoying as hell. :p John F. Lewis (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hoc steward actions

[edit]

Hi,

I've blocked 'Hello my friends!' for being one of the sockpuppets used by a vandal. I've also blocked two sleeper accounts following a checkuser investigation ('So it goes ~' and 'TheKeysToMyHouse'). Also, I've blocked the (publicly used) IP address for 6 hours.

I hope you don't mind these actions of mine. Please feel free to change or remove the blocks.

Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathonius, when there is vandalism in progress these kind of blocks are more than welcome. -- Mdd (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 30 April 2014

[edit]

I just completed a layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/April 30, 2014, but it will have to be moved into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 30, 2014 by an Admin. I have to be leaving now, but will work on the next day or two of QOTDs after I return. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Mdd (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 24 May 2014

[edit]

The layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/May 24, 2014 will have to be moved to the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 24, 2014 project page by an admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/024&oldid=2948120"