→Hillary Clinton: I have added clarifying punctuation. Maybe it can be worded more clearly than that, but we should avoid making the citation into an essay.
* I get logged in there automatically when I jump over. It is correct that the Beer Parlour has not been edited since November of last year (save for an edit I just made), since we now transclude discussions into it through another route. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:#F2E6CE">''BD2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
* I get logged in there automatically when I jump over. It is correct that the Beer Parlour has not been edited since November of last year (save for an edit I just made), since we now transclude discussions into it through another route. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:#F2E6CE">''BD2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
* Hi [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]]. The login issue looks like a system hiccup, because it is currently working okay for me. Have you tried repeatedly, posting elsewhere and going back, or was it a one-time incident? ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] ([[User talk:Ningauble|talk]]) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
* Hi [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]]. The login issue looks like a system hiccup, because it is currently working okay for me. Have you tried repeatedly, posting elsewhere and going back, or was it a one-time incident? ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] ([[User talk:Ningauble|talk]]) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
* It continued for another day on several sites (even on en:WQ and en:WP once each), then went away completely without any effort on my part. I hate those kinds of problems. Thanks for the ideas! ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Not sure who you were trying to impress with that block rationale ("I wish to be clear that I am serious about the interaction ban that I have imposed"). It reminds me of the father who slaps his child in the face and then threatens to punch her next, if she dares to speak again. Moreover, treating an editor like a vandal doesn't raise his morale, it only prevents him from contributing to articles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Bickering and feuding harms the project. If you consider yourself a child, and a one day block to be a slap in the face, I won't argue the implications. BD2412T13:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Can you think of any quick(er) way of adding a dot (.) at the end of each reference on the Virgil page (e.g., line xxx.)? (The "search and replace" method doesn't seem to work for that goal.) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
A word
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I hope you're not thinking of blocking me again for 30 days just because of this edit. (It will be hard for me to come up with something funnier than this if you do block me again this time, but I'll try...) Okay, take care. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay. As you know, my brother was blocked some time ago in many wikis where he has zero edits (by a person I cannot name). He was recently unblocked at Commons, where admin asked him to write on his user page that he is my brother. (He did so [5], as a favor, which may be amusing to the people who think he is my sock.) He was also unblocked at Wikisource [6] on the grounds that he had no edits there. (He also has no edits here.)
Other than the strong evidence presented by email that he is my brother (including citizen card, ID), there are other things which you included can check. 1) he created his account in 2009 (I myself didn't even know about accounts till late 2012); 2) the email with which he registered his account is diofact@hotmail.com (confirm that); 3) he still uses that email, even on his Facebook account, where you can find him (Diogo Tomé). I think it is obvious that the account is his.
Also worth noting, he, just like me, registered with his real name, which is not what socks do (if somehow I were to have a sock, and could magically have created it 5 years ago, I would name it "starwarsfan93" or something like that). Although I know he doesn't want to edit Wikiquote, I still don't think he should be blocked here on sock grounds.
I would ask the person I can't name, who blocked him the the first place, to unblock his account, as he did at Wikisource, but I don't want to be blocked for 30 days (I suppose even this request alone could get me in trouble), so I'm asking you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would prefer to ask the blocking admin directly if he would revert the block (as he did at Wikisource), but I'm under an inconvenient interaction ban. At this point I'm using BD as a proxy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Mdd, first we should ask the blocking admin. Only then (if he refuses to unblock) should we go to the admins' noticeboard. The first step is (was) important. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
BD2412,
Please see my replies to you at my user talk page at diff and diff.
I am going to defer to your judgment, and not get involved in any of this stuff, therefore repeated replies to my user talk page with attempts by a third-party user to draw me into this matter are not helpful at this point in time.
I'm recovering from some significant health issues and would prefer to just not be bothered any more with this matter.
I thank you again for your advice and I will continue to abide by it.
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You should unblock my "Daniel Tomé" account. It's not clear to me how using my real name could ever be perceived as sockpuppetry. The issue here was a cross wiki harassment against me conducted by Cirt, whom I'm not supposed to mention, and who should be blocked for having defaced my block log for no reason. May I recreate the user page (after the coming 30 day block)? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I still think you should unblock this account. As far as I know, there is nothing in policy that prevents me from having more than 1 account, as long as it is clearly labeled and admitted to be mine (which "Daniel Tomé" is, as a very public rename, and only a latter shy of "DanielTom"), not to mention its block for it being a "sock" is ridiculous. I can raise the issue at the administrators' noticeboard if you would rather not unblock it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
It probably would be best raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard. After all, what would you do with the account if it were unblocked? BD2412T20:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
If it is supposed to be blocked, you should have blocked it at the time of the rename. Not sure I want "User:Daniel Tomé" discussed in public noticeboards again, for obvious reasons, but if you insist... ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! It's always nice to see some Wikiquote editors joining global discussions, thank you. Of course you noticed that the WMF didn't bother registering the Wikiquote logo before registering a less important logo nobody asked protection for? Personally I'd like to see the WMF focus on the protection of assets that directly impact our editors and readers (Italian editors' pet peeve is the domain wikipedia.it, which has millions visitors and displays prominent advertisement, with no action from WMF in years; but this matters less for you of course). See wmf:Wikimedia trademarks#Wikiquote. --Nemo14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hoyt's dictionary sections
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello ! I've been editing Memory, which is currently split between general sourced quotes and quotes which you added from Hoyt's dictionary. Just wanted to ask whether I need to verify the quotes in that section independently before integrating them with the rest of the article or whether they should remain in a separate section indefinitely. Cheers :) --Aphorist (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hoyt's quotations are generally not fully sourced because they do not indicate the date or page number of the work from which they are derived. However, they are not "unsourced" because Hoyt's itself is a source. These can be integrated into the general quotes as sourced to Hoyt's (see Results for an example of this), but the ideal result will be for each to be fully sourced by date and page in its work of origin. Cheers! BD2412T19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. Are page numbers always required ? They almost always vary between editions, so I'm never sure which to use, and I find the citation format here makes it difficult to concisely state information about the edition being used without distracting the reader from the quote. --Aphorist (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The ideal citation points the reader to the date, work, and page where the quote in question was first ever published, as we are in the business of providing verified quotes. Consider: "One often hears of writers that rise and swell with their subject, though it may seem but an ordinary one". That is from Moby-Dick; I could tell you that alone, and you could take my word on it, but our page on that work at least indicates that it is in chapter 104 (the chapters of Moby-Dick are short enough for that to make the quote easy to find). If you want to find it to see the surrounding context, you can do so without reading the entire book. This is also useful for demonstrating that the quote was part of the work at its inception, or if it wasn't, of when it was added. BD2412T00:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks much
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There was an additional quote from the film that I vaguely remember, but can't find, where one character was rattling off a list of slang names of things that another one (the murder victim, I believe) would do. BD2412T21:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
HotCat is definitely available, in preferences, under Gadgets. As for the project, there is a public domain compilation of quotes in the book, Respectfully Quoted (it is in the public domain because it is produced by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, and contains quotes requested by members of Congress). I have created a project page at User:BD2412/RQ listing dozens of pages where I have separated these quotes by topic. The red links are topics missing from Wikiquote altogether; the blue links are topics for which Wikiquote has an article, and some RQ quotes may be missing from that article. The red-link pages, in particular, need to be fully formatted, augmented with lede materials, and then moved into the mainspace. I should add that some of these only have one quote, and other quotes on the topic can be found and added to the page. The blue-link pages need to have quotes moved from the pages I have created in my userspace to the correct target pages. BD2412T15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Probably the best thing to do would be to move methodically through the list, making sure that each quote on a given page is properly formatted and adding appropriate quotes as needed. Once a page is up to par with other pages in mainspace, they can be moved to mainspace and categories can be added. BD2412T17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The project is outlined in my response to User:Plot Spoiler above. I can't say that it particularly has to do with freedom of speech, although there is a page on obscenity (User:BD2412/Obscenity). Currently, Obscenity redirects to Profanity, but I think that they are distinct topics, and would like to see a separate page on obscenity built and moved over the redirect. Cheers! BD2412T16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
BD2412, I could use your help at Talk:Landmark Forum with my attempts to reach good faith compromise.
Basically here's the situation:
Some people there don't like the quotes that were originally used to create the page.
I've acknowledged this, and removed some quotes outright myself.
Other quotes I've trimmed to make them more pithy and succinct.
I also suggested that we can add other more quotable quotes and even use those to replace the less quotable quotes.
Instead there is talk of trying to get the entire page deleted!
The topic is certainly notable. Can we come to a good faith compromise resolution where the page can be retained, with new quotes added, and some other quotes kept?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
BD2412, I started some work on your latest project and created a page for Exploration. I made an attempt to move this topic out of the red topics list on your subpage - is this how you would like it to be signified (that a topic is done)? I also deleted the subpage where the quotes had temporarily lived - is this also how you would like things to occur? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
As you have admitted to your awareness that in many instances it can be MUCH harder for others to REVERSE the changes you are presently making than for you to make them, I am requesting that you cease from imposing your preferences on the pages where such style preferences have NOT been imposed, at least until there is a clear opportunity for a consensus decision on the matter to be established. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
At the moment, I am primarily working on pages that I created, or for which I have been a primary author, and pages that have a mix of some punctuated citations and some unpunctuated citations. BD2412T02:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, a juicy sourcing project – and a transwiki at that! I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll take a look at it sometime in the next week. Thanks for the suggestion. ~ Jeff Q(talk)04:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BD2412, since the deadline for discussion has passed, could you close this discussion? I must mention that there is a degree of urgency because the deletion of Brimstone's Commons pictures depends on whether there are articles to support the need for the pictures. Thank you very much. Starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I already left this message before. Can you or another 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) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
New project? – Harbottle's Dictionary of Quotations
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BD. Please check this dictionary; its translations from Latin into English are a bit awkward (and I'm guessing the same is true for those in Greek), but it is very comprehensive and well-sourced. Two examples for your consideration: Anacreon and Alexis. (The problem is, it doesn't have a Wikisource page, but you can still find it online, e.g., here.) What do you think, should we try to import it to Wikiquote? Interested? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Excellent. I will begin this weekend with the uploads to English Wikisource, and once formatting there is underway, will begin porting quotes to a project page over here, from which they can be distributed to the appropriate author/topic pages. BD2412T18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you read the whole poem, it becomes clear. Lord Byron feels he has been wronged by this lady, claiming his heart was "in friendship cheated"—
Wast thou but a fiend, assuming Friendship's smile, and woman's art, And in borrow'd beauty blooming, Trifling with a trusted heart!
"Pure friendship's well-feigned blush", I think, means that the blush was faked, and Lord Byron confirms this himself in the following verse (he refers to her smiles and blushing, that tricked him, as "false charms"). In these painful parting poems, it is customary to say that you forgive the lady, and hope for her happiness and longevity, which Byron does, but then he also peculiarly reminds her how her beauty will fade away, and goes further than Shakespeare (who also did this often), and hopes that she will then also feel the way he does now, imagining that at that time he will return as a ghost and whisper to her "friendship's broken vow". ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
This is not, by any interpretation, a maxim: it is not a general precept, but a description of a lady being demure.
This is a poem about friendship ruined by romance. Byron and the lady were friends, until she seduced him. He does not love her, and declares that they can no longer be friends. He feels betrayed: a true friend, with "pure friendship", would not have taken it too far and ruined the friendship.
The poem also emphasizes an ironic ambiguity: the smile, the twinkling eye, the blush, can all be innocently demure between friends, but they can also be a come-on; and and he accuses her [stanza 13]:
By all those false charms united,— Thou hast wrought thy wanton will.
As you say, smiling and blushing were natural expressions of friendship by the female at the time, so what makes you think it was romance that ruined the friendship? (I guess it is because of the verses, "Not as man I looked on thee;— / Why like woman then undo me?") That you are friends with someone, and then find that she wants to be your lover, is hardly an affront, and would not necessarily have caused the sentiments expressed in this poem. "Thou hast wrought thy wanton will" does not imply anything romantic or sexual (in fact, if all her charms were forged, as Byron claims, then she might actually not have loved him at all); she could have "slighted" him, and betrayed their friendship, by, say, revealing secrets he had told no one but her. What makes you sure it was otherwise? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Time for closure
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This seems to be resolved. Sorry for my spotty availability recently. I have just finished an enormous project at work (publishing five books on different aspects of privacy law), so I should have more flexibility for a while. Cheers! BD2412T03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oh. No problem. You know, at my school, we (students) make fun of lawyers because—we say—they can't do even the most basic math operations. But the most common criticism made of lawyers is of their character. People say the meanest things about lawyers. I find this ironic, because when people get into big trouble, they invariably end up looking for help from (you've guess it) a lawyer. Needless to say, having a good lawyer and a good accountant is key for any business (Al Capone only got arrested because they caught his accountant). As for lawyers, I often say they have a very easy job: whatever the case, their client is always right. After all, lawyers don't have to worry about the truth—that's up to the judge to find. "Don't worry, my dear client, 'tis impossible to lose such a case!" (Of course, the hardest part of a lawyer's job, is when they have to ask their clients to pay.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
As an aside, John Conington apparently believed Pope to be "the most correct of English poets". Now, I have a question for you: do you like this format? I do not, but the alternative blank spaces would make the first line appear to be floating—how would you present the quote? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The appearance may vary from monitor to monitor, but the first one looks to me like line 1 is centered of over line 2, so I would go with the second. BD2412T12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'm not sure this last format is acceptable from a scholarly point of view, but I guess we can stick with it for now. (If someone else comes along, and changes it into a better format, that'll be fine too.) Thanks for your input. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rather than restoring the page, I can just tell you exactly what was on it. There was a lede identical to the two-line lede in the subject's Wikipedia article; and there was a single unsourced quote (under an ==Unsourced== header) on the page, which was: "There is no real excellence in all this world which can be separated from right living". Other than categories and maintenance tags, that's all there was. BD2412T16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
We have tens of thousands of unsourced quote that would be easy to source, given unlimited time. I have restored the page - please add the source info. Cheers! BD2412T20:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It does not work here because the implementation relies on custom CSS and JavaScript that is present at Wikipedia but not at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wishing you Happy Easter. I thought I would create an article on Easter Sunday today but realized late that you had already done it as Easter. So I added all the quotes I gathered with references to the article. May like to see.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just making a brief note of thanks for all the Wiktionary links you have been adding to the pages lately. Those are certainly very worthy and beneficial additions to the pages, and permit opportunities for greater expansion of awareness and appreciation of some of the multitudes of meanings many words can have. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, Mr. Bartlett got it wrong then. I could only find these quotations in a 1968 edition of his Familiar Quotations[10] (as far as I know, they are not in Bartlett's 1919). I don't believe they are Pope's, so I'll be removing them from the article now, unless you object. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
They may already have been in Alexander Pope before I started adding 1919 quotes. If they are in any edition of Bartlett's, but not in Pope's actual work, I would suggest creating a Misattributed section on that page, so we can correct Mr. Bartlett's error. BD2412T23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I did not end up attending that session. In fact, I spent almost the entirety of Wikimania beta testing various proposed upgrades, volunteering to man tables, and engaging in lengthy and indeterminate side discussions. Wikiquote did come up a few times in those discussions, particularly with respect to the potential use of Wikidata to organize quotes. BD2412T13:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
page move
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear BD2412,
I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.
As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.
Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.
The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.
Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.
In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.
Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.
Judging by some of the available examples, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], that is not a universal rule.
Now, let me ask you, which of these is preferable?
There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to, That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin, More pangs and fears than wars or women have; And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again.
Henry VIII, act III, scene ii, lines 350–72. Cardinal Wolsey is speaking about his friendship with Henry VIII.
or
There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to, That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin, More pangs and fears than wars or women have; And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again.
Henry VIII, act III, scene ii, lines 350–72 Cardinal Wolsey is speaking about his friendship with Henry VIII
Since we don't use footnotes (as I noted), punctuating only sentences would have us punctuating some citations and not others, which is inconsistent. In many cases, we already have inconsistent punctuation for partial citations on different parts of the same page. It is much easier to punctuate everything than to find only the citations that do not contain complete sentences and manually unpunctuate them. As for other sources, the question is not whether there is anybody who doesn't punctuate, but if everybody doesn't. If everybody didn't, I would consider it moot. BD2412T00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, if you can not see that citations that are not sentences are different from citations that include sentences, then yes, it becomes "inconsistent". I say we should treat them differently consistently (because they are different). It is not inconsistent to treat different things differently. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Some of the very quotation dictionaries that I have been working to incorporate into our corpus punctuate citations that are "not sentences" any more than the ones I am punctuating - Harbottle; Hoyt's, Dictionary of Legal Quotations, Burning Words, Respectfully Quoted. I believe these collectively add up to about forty-thousand quotes, and I'm about halfway through the entire project. For every single one of these, I would need to remove all of these ending punctuation marks (except in the cases, as pointed out before, where there are notes beyond the citation), or end up with inconsistent punctuation in the pages where they are added. It's much easier for me to match the punctuation on the pages to the quotes. BD2412T00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, as Pope said, "Just as the twig is bent, the tree's inclined." If you first learned about how citations should be punctuated from those dictionaries, then you will stick to it, irrespective of any reason you might be given to the contrary. (Cf. Swift: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.") ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's not a question of preference. It's the easiest way to do what we are here to do, which is to build a comprehensive corpus of notable quotations. There is no more efficient way to do that then to take large existing collections and combine them into one, complete with their existing punctuation scheme. BD2412T01:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Gnat Turds are NOT necessary in this wiki, nor are similar small needless dots over all the pages
Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I had taken a short break from wiki activities, and just as I was about to leave my home entirely I checked in here and noticed you are on ANOTHER of your arrogant bouts of PRESUMPTUOUS pollution of this wiki with grammatically POINTLESS points.
Gnat Turds are NOT necessary in this wiki — and your periodic COMPULSIVE addition of similar DOTS to of needless CRAP punctuation assertions to MANY pages AS IF they were needed, with authoritative sounding assertions of "Consistent punctuation and spacing at the end of citation lines to clearly indicate to the reader that the line has ended" is one of the most ridiculously contemptible of things that ANY of the generally honorable people who are admins are inclined to do, of which I am aware. You are the ONLY person who is actually insistent on the supposed propriety of this relatively RARE and certainly NOT universally used form of punctuation, which happens to have been used in at least one of the 19th century works with which you have done ACTUALLY useful and commendable work here, in adding selections of quotes from it. I once again assert this form of punctuation is not only NOT necessary but from my perspectives QUITE UGLY, and every time I or others have objected to your bouts of adding these you have BLITHELY insisted they were entirely a service to the readers and users that are necessary.
I am not oblivious that you are clever enough a legalist to twist arguments around, and present valid and proper sounding reasons for your acts, and I am prepared to respond to them, later, but I actually must be leaving now — but I will say were I still an admin and you persisted in such asinine behavior, I would definitely move to block you at this point to prevent further damage to pages, for I do consider such acts without clear sanction or rational motivations an act of VANDALISM and a MASSIVE page pollution campaign.
You KNOW that you can pollute the pages with these needless dots EASILY, and with little opposition or complaint in your relatively trusted positions as an Admin, and FEW are likely to challenge you. I once again ask you to exhibit simple human DECENCY and cease and DESIST from this, for at this point that is about all the means I have to stop you from further disgracing yourself, and this wiki, through the adding of all those goddamned ugly dots that are no more necessary than GNAT TURDS. Have a nice day. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Greetings Kalki In order to accommodate your absurdism I will leave out the "gnat turds" in my response here My sense is that you, being an absurdist, find periods to be unnecessarily restraining But for these periods, these poor citations would be free to go on and on forever, unfettered by the chains of conformity Sadly, it seems my compulsion to impose this order matches your compulsion to eliminate it Therefore I will continue to punctuate citations until not a one remains unpunctuated Have a nice day BD2412T00:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
As a person who is apparently not well informed enough to have a clear idea of the diversity and worth of absurdist ideas, which defy and oppose MANY forms of absolutist ideologies and idiocy, you are quite welcome to think and do absurdly stupid things so long as they are NOT damaging to the RIGHTS of others to defy and oppose them — but if you are genuinely so truly so shallow minded or ill-informed as to believe that absurdism is the mere PROMOTION of ridiculous absurdities, something like MANY legalisms are, rather than a promotion of the HONEST confrontation of ABSURDITIES and STUPIDITY, and the permitting of diverse notions of the FAIR and the FOUL to contend HONESTLY, rather than ALWAYS through artificial illusions and extensive forms of mendacity, I will attempt to clarify a few things in my use of the term, and aspects of it as generally used by many.
An absurdist, quite UNLIKE many or perhaps even mostabsolutists, authoritarians, nihilists and other nitwits who are often prone to embrace many styles of foul fascism, arrogance, tyranny and terrorism, though rarely calling them that, and various dupes, cowards and cronies willing to serve and support them, for various major or trivial reasons, is very willing to admit that there exists MUCH of importance and value which they do NOT know or claim to know. This clearly makes them mystically humble and courageous in more ways than many are inclined to even attempt to be. Those with most ethical and rationalintegrity and competence also know that there ARE things or aspects of reality which they CAN and MUST know, or believe, or doubt, to varying degrees, depending upon various forms of evidence, and seek to develop greater awareness and appreciation of the views of others, based on the evidence available to them, and to HELP people better understand others and themselves, by whatever means they believe ethically appropriate and effective.
As a promoter of ethically competent absurdism, I am NOT a stupidly naïve absolutist about anything, something people who are PRONE to be dimwitted absolutists about MUCH often seem to find impossible, or at least very difficult to understand, and often actively seek ways ridicule, AS IF not ABSOLUTELY accepting their supposed authority or what they find authoritative as such, are simply therefore some form of Absolutist Anarchist or even as Nihilistic about EVERYTHING as MOST authoritarians are about MUCH which others believe or know, and the most desperate or arrogant authoritarians and nihilists don't wish to bother hearing about, beyond finding ways to denigrate and deride them effectively among those almost as ignorant and confused as they are.
I assert that any ethically competent absurdist, or any ethically competent human being, seeks to effectively fight lies and delusions based on absolutist, legalistic and mechanistic assumptions, attitudes and actions. I am aware that such USE of terms as I am employing are not as yet within the general vocabulary of most, but I trust that MANY are growing MORE aware and appreciative of MANY aspects of the truths they INDICATE, even in these troubled and confusing times.
My objections to what I believe to be your generally UNDESIRABLE and NON-STANDARD forms of NEEDLESS additions of punctuation marks is NOT in any way a rejection of genuinely USEFUL and appropriate punctuation marks. Your apparent WILLINGNESS to embrace absurd mendacity in this instance, which is one of the many things ethically competent absurdists fight, in opposing absolutist, legalistic and mechanistic forms of idiocy which deny and defy MANY forms of profound awareness and appreciation of TRUTH and JUSTICE in favor of apparent or incidental advantages to some forms of comforting mendacity or delusion. There are even occupations where this is said to be highly prized.
I am well aware that the very diverse ranges and forms of absurdism, universalism and mysticism are not an easy thing for most people to understand, and that some forms can be just as repellent, repulsive, and dangerously deranged as any of the MANY forms of authoritarianism, nihilism and absolutism which many people casually or fervently accept, and which competent and wise absurdists, steadfastly oppose and fight, whatever their own ranges of personal inclinations, affinities and moods amidst various situations might be.
But now that I have attempted to clarify some aspects of my stances of philosophical absurdism, I will state that quite honestly, your recent activities, and similar rampages against the FAR more common and common sense punctuations of others for such information lines, remind me of few things so much as those of an "officially empowered" and sanctioned vandal. MUCH like any PISSANT VANDAL, you are apparently UNASHAMEDLY wasting a great deal of your own and other people's TIME, and making an effort to oppose your will to IMPOSE your particular style on ALL pages, with the PALTRY and DISGUSTINGLY MENDACIOUS arguments of a "need" for UNIFORMITY wherever there is a page that has so much as one or two lines which end as a period, because their happen to be actual sentences within them, and there IS an actually standardly recognized need for such. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply
BD, as you pointed out, it actually takes a long time to remove those dots, so I think it's reasonable not to add them to pages that (say) Kalki created, if he does not like them, at least until such time as the WQ community comes to a consensus on how citations should be punctuated. Of course Kalki should also not enforce his aesthetic views on pages that you created. In any case, if established dictionaries of quotations do not punctuate their citations, what you are doing can not be considered absolutely necessary, so I do not believe you are justified in making so many changes to so many pages so fast, after being challenged, without prior consensus. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
My primary goal right now is to find pages that have some punctuated and some unpunctuated citations, and making them uniform. Of course, as I do this, the biggest issue I see is a plague of pages that are just terribly formatted all over. Mind you, I am skipping a lot more pages than I am making these changes to, and I could be going a lot faster than I am going. BD2412T01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
RATIONAL CONSISTENCY rather than MECHANISTIC ROBOTIC CONSISTENCY is what should be favored. I do occasionally end info lines with a period — because they are arguably or certainly sentences or paragraphs with sentences, rather than mere info lines. I checked a few of the pages in your recent rampage, like Now, which I created as an article on 1 June 2014, and was the SOLE editor on since then, UNTIL your edit. There were only TWO lines which ended with a period, because they were arguably or certainly, interpretable as sentences. IF I were a totally COWARDLY ass-kissing MORON, which you seem to believe people should BE in regard to your claims, of a NEED for ROBOTIC consistency and OBEDIENCE to YOU, I might actually thank you for the ARROGANT ASININE PRESUMPTUOUS MENDACITY by which you seek to claim ANY RATIONAL legitimacy for your actions on MOST of these pages. I honestly cannot even pretend to do that. Your primary goal in the recent bout of assault upon the formatting MOST others seem to PREFER, seems to have been to INFEST as many pages as possible with your particular form of UGLY and NEEDLESS formatting. Even an initial supporter of your actions the last time this occurred conceded they were ugly. Indeed I will agree with you that "the biggest issue I see is a plague of pages that are just terribly formatted all over" —and I often try to gradually correct this with formatting that had been agreed to from the beginning of this wiki — and that you CHOOSE to INCREASE that plague of poor formatting with your own massive INFUSION of a what has NOT been agreed to, and which I consider a VILE, UGLY preference of YOU, and basically you ALONE, of all the most regular editors here, in what I consider a vile, ARROGANT, and foully PRESUMPTUOUS way, is something I consider a despicable act. Otherwise you seem, for the most part, a fairly decent person, but in this regard, I genuinely consider your actions quite despicable, and in some ways more so than those of a merely anonymous vandal, whose damages are usually relatively easy to revert. In this case you know that few are likely to oppose you sufficiently to immediately revert the damages to the page formats, and it will get MORE difficult as time goes by, and thus are likely to persist for months or years EVEN if enough people become sufficiently aware of the arrogant asininity of your acts to oppose them. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
First, there are a dozen periods in your own preceding paragraph (not including those in URLs), so you can't be all that averse to them. Secondly, these formats will not persist for "months or years"; they will persist forever. Cheers! BD2412T22:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The profound stupidity of your previous assertion IS certainly Eternal, in more ways than you are likely to easily surmise, but I believe the temporal endurance of the forms of arrogant asinine stupidity you apparently aim to promote and insist upon, at this point, will certainly be less than "forever", and if there is sufficient justice at work in coming months, I believe those traces of your acts of obnoxiously smug arrogance CAN and WILL be eradicated within the next year, but not without considerably more effort than should need to be expended in reverting edits that I continue to insist amount to spiteful and sociopathic vandalism, because of the obstinate and smug ways you have responded to EVERY one of the objections other people have made to you in EVERY episode of VERY extensive activity in such MASS alteration of HUNDREDS of pages, of which I am currently familiar.
Knowing well the limits of my own time, and that of others, and the extent of my involvement with some more urgent and important matters, I do not suppose that this repudiation will immediately occur, with anything close to the strength I believe it SHOULD, but I am confident your attempts to IMPOSE a relatively obscure, widely REJECTED, largely ABANDONED, aesthetically DISPLEASING, and grammatically RIDICULOUS, 19th century style convention will eventually be REJECTED and REPUDIATED here, and the obnoxiously arrogant way which you have sought to IMPOSE it by quite SPECIOUS arguments, repudiated and censured, though unlike some petty and presumptuous people might for disagreements with them, I personally would NOT seek to have your adminship rescinded over this editorial and tactical matter, though, I obviously consider it one of your worst breaches of anything resembling proper respect for wiki principles which were designed to MINIMIZE authoritarian IMPOSITIONS of ANYONE, on the options and styles which could be developed.
I will also note that you apparently did not read, understand or are deliberately ignoring the assertion I made in bold in some of the statements above this one:
My objections to what I believe to be your generally UNDESIRABLE and NON-STANDARD forms of NEEDLESS additions of punctuation marks is NOT in any way a rejection of genuinely USEFUL and appropriate punctuation marks.
I thus believe that I had stated rather clearly that I do NOT have and NEVER have had any objection to the proper and standard use of periods at the end of grammatically composed sentences, I simply have very strong objection to their use to NEEDLESSLY terminate simple information lines, which is just as UGLY and UNUSUAL in MOST compendiums of quotations as a similar 18th and 19th century style which was never universal and eventually abandoned nearly everywhere, of ending nearly all book titles, chapter titles, section titles and poem titles with periods. (I had originally written a similar statement with a somewhat more accusative stance, but toned it down a bit: Your apparent will to confuse my objections to your UNDESIRABLE and NON-STANDARD forms of NEEDLESS additions … etc.").
Your asinine mockery of my objections AS IF they stemmed from some asinine objections to proper punctuations does have some merit, as the permit me to repudiate some of their mendacity or other errors with truth: AS an absurdist I do perceive MANY forms of illusory and needless limits and attempts by various forms of ignorant and confused cowards and fools to impose limits on others to either apparently "prove" their assumptions of "superiority" or to plainly testify of some of their disadvantages relative to themselves, and to keep them in states of such disadvantage, fear and deference as MANY forms of cowards and fools REQUIRE to FEEL safe — even as they go about damaging their own safety and integrity and that of others. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I once again have to be leaving, but I see you are continuing your despicable spree of what I believe is clearly vandalism and obnoxiously aggressive assault AGAINST style standard which have been he clear preferences of MOST people who have worked on this project for over a decade. I can even conceive that you might be quite smugly proud of yourself, aware of your apparent impunity amidst the apathy or timidity of others to speak out against your current activities. You have already revealed a great deal of your character or lack of it, by the increasing severity and injustice of your actions over the last couple of years. I realize that, like most people you think well of yourself and your own inclinations, and you might even imagine me to be far more ignorant and confused about many matters than I actually am. There are quite a few things more I intend to say upon these matters, eventually, when I believe it is appropriate, and I will simply state now, that despite the extent your actions irritate and sometimes anger me, I truly pity you. Though I recognize you have done MUCH that is GOOD, I assert that you have behaved extremely disgracefully in this matter — and that is not something that will soon be forgotten. Even though the wisest of people must forgive all manner of things far worse, and pardon much in making their assessments of how to proceed among people ruled by various errors and delusions, especially those who clearly have either innate or socially developed impediments and obstacles to genuine moral and rational integrity, there does come times of harsh revelations, when people at last can perceive things in broader and deeper ways than they are normally constrained to perceiving them. I might say more on this matter soon, or very little — I do have many more urgent and important matters to attend to than observing your manner of disgracing yourself, or disputing with someone who clearly is unwilling to heed rational objections to imposing dictatorial measures on others. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC) + tweakReply
Actually, most of what I am doing now is changing [[Image: links to [[File: links to avoid redirects, but there is indeed some punctuation mixed in with that. I think you are mistaking people for being apathetic when the truth is that they just don't care. BD2412T21:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Could you please attend to this?
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I notice you have been using AWB replacing "<br /> → <br>". This is not necessary: both forms are valid in HTML5 and in wikitext. Did you know Mediawiki actually converts it back to the former when serving content pages? This is because some platforms require the explicitly "self closing" <br /> element and fail for the "void" <br> element because they expect all tags to be closed sooner or later.
Like Mediawiki output, I prefer the self closing version because it is broadly safer. I also prefer it because it is easier for me to spot the breaks when editing wikimarkup, though others may not find it so. You do not need to fix what is not broken. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I was just trying to save what seemed to be a bit of excess wikitext. If you'd like, I can set the fix the other way, to turn <br> tags into <br /> tags. I have made quite a few of the shorter form myself over the years. BD2412T03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your behavior is pathetic and contemptible in more ways than I currently have time to expose.
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I am currently far too busy to attend to many of your extreme ABUSES of your editing privileges here, despite the repudiation and rejection of these impositions of an extraneous styling which is clearly AGAINST community consensus for many months and years now, with INCREASINGLY smug aggression, but have been taking note of them in more ways than you might be either imaginative or intelligent enough to discern, and I do intend to respond to them more fully after I have attended to far more urgent and important matters than the damages you have been doing to your own capacity to receive any enduring respect for our character or inclinations, and what I believe will be the eventually remedied damages you have done, and continue to do to this wiki, and to proper respect for the principles of justice, honesty, and candor. I am NOT so naïve as you might wish to believe, and I do not expect I will succeed in immediately remedying all of these, and I believe I have noted it might take as much as a year for many of your rather petty and arrogant impositions to be repudiated and rejected and censured with the vigor appropriate, by myself and by others, but I do truly pity your apparent lack of mental sense and moral conscience.Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
What you must understand, my friend, is that I have an obsessive-compulsive personality, and therefore I am utterly driven to complete the task. Also, I am now adding a lot of missing dates, ordering quotes, and fixing disambiguation links as I go. Cheers! BD2412T16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I understand much more about many things than I believe you easily could, and yes, I am someone you might rightly consider a friend, and not inclined to be malicious towards you, but your actions are exhibiting no respectable friendliness towards me nor to most others who have commented upon this issue, nor to the CLEAR preferences of MOST who have edited this wiki, nor to the principles of honesty and candor and justice. I believe you are sufficiently clever enough to realize that your relatively recent additional efforts of doing minor tweaks and additions that are actually somewhat desirable makes it MUCH harder for others to simply REVERT your impositions of an actually unpopular and very undesired styling form. Being clever and successful for a time is certainly NOT synonymous with wisdom or good sense. I have thus far refrained from making some VERY harsh assertions regarding your actions and apparent attitudes, because I actually do have far more that I must be dealing with, before I can consider myself free to let loose some of these, but the very persistence of your obsessive and somewhat anti-social compulsions have made them something impossible to pardon from much of the criticism and censure they deserve, and though I do not actually wish to be so harsh as I believe it might eventually be necessary to be, but when time and opportunity comes, I too will do what I believe what many far more important and enduring tasks and duties require. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) + tweakReply
I consider all of my tweaks and additions to be desirable. That is the whole point of this project, to do as much as possible to improve as much as possible. I have not added improvements to the process for any reason but to improve the process (and the pages edited through it). BD2412T16:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I believe that in many ways you probably are so narrow and closed minded that you consider your pollution of the pages with what I and others believe to be unnecessary, displeasing and detrimental periods at the end of info lines "desirable improvements" DESPITE the VERY CLEAR preferences and desires of MOST others, and the express disapproval of others who have at least as great a concern and interest in this project as you. You have been requested at several points over recent years and months to desist in your obsession, but it plainly is becoming far more arrogantly and smugly and persistently imposed. I believe that this behavior is to your eternal disgrace and lasting discredit among all ethically competent people, and though the wisest and strongest can and do forgive nearly any errors, there are types of misbehavior they have no inclination to pardon or excuse from censure and harsh consequences. Many at times are punished wrongly for their devotions to the general good, in ways others cannot easily understand, but eventually all are punished rightly for opposing it, in ways many people clearly CAN and DO. So it goes.… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I see that in your most recent edits, though you still use the same general summaries you have been inclined to, you seem to be refraining from generally unwanted impositions of an extraneous styling which is clearly against community consensus, and not adding further dots to the to the end of the info lines, but are doing more generally acceptable format alterations. I thank you for this, and I trust I can be more moderate, gentle and less harsh in some of my assessments if this continues. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to instill any false hopes. It seemed prudent to go through the unobjectionable minor fixes before returning to the punctuation issue. BD2412T23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I certainly cannot object to the relatively acceptable alterations you are currently doing, and I hope that many things can be more clearly resolved before you resume any further alterations in more objectionable ways. I wish you well, and I now must once again be leaving for at least an hour or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
I have much to note, about such very strong statements of opinion and facts, but unfortunately must be leaving, but I will state that I intend to make some further observations upon it within the next week or so, and give a more thorough assessment of why I believe it is extremely despicable than I have thus far done. There are quite a few other priorities I must attend to, before I take too much of my time to attend to that. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your actions in automatically reverting the edits I made which consolidated additions made into a different section, and added a bit of info as well, which you yourself soon reverted, once you realized your error, continue to be plainly and irrationally impulsive as you seek to mechanistically IMPOSE a style, with bots, which has repeatedly been rejected as UGLY and UNNECESSARY that remains unpopular, undesired and generally undesirable. You have at times obviously attempted to snare me into making such mistakes as might warrant censure, while you persist in obviously obsessive TROLLING vandalism of the project which clearly seems intended to irritate others and IGNORE the preferences of NEARLY EVERYONE else who has worked on this project, and itself clearly warrants CENSURE. I am very well aware that others are probably too timid to confront a person plainly exhibiting fanatical obsessive irrationality, who had up until recently long been a relatively trusted and rational admin, but this situation is truly disgusting and tragic, and should warrant further notice, but I am considering options on how to minimize the damages caused by irrational and obsessive inclinations, without producing others needlessly.~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) +tweaksReply
Have I tried to censure you? Despite your multiple reverts of my work, which encompasses much more than merely adding periods to the ends of citations, and your cruel barbs, I have not once suggested that you be in any way brought to task for your conduct. BD2412T15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
ONE reason you have not, is that I believe you are CLEARLY AWARE that I have been ACTUALLY been VERY careful and considerate in undoing your work and taking meticulous effort to NOT undo any of the relatively minor improvements you usually but NOT always make with many of these edits in recent weeks. I am aware that I am dealing with a cleverly and DELIBERATELY deceitful person, who knows how to use and misuse words PROFESSIONALLY and you are making a somewhat mild but cleverly deceitful censure of my activities now, in IMPLYING that I regularly revert your other additions as well as the generally undesirable ones. I believe you are very well aware that despite your obvious advantages in using a bot to RAPIDLY make MANY unneeded and unwanted and undesired changes, and a relatively FEW relatively TRIVIAL improvements along with these acts of TROLLING and arrogantly DICTATORIAL IMPOSITIONS, I have acted with moderation, and while reverting the changes that are IMPROPER IMPOSITIONS of an UNDESIRED styling, and ACCEPTED the far greater burdens on MY time on UNDOING your TROLLING vandalism, on EACH page I edit than on yours in DOING it WHOLESALE on MANY.
Your activities are thus in MANY ways actually far MORE time-wasting and obnoxious than that of typical trolls and vandals who can simply be reverted and blocked, because even I, who am clearly irritated by your activities and NOT intimidated by your attitudes and "official" status, am reluctant to fully explicate some of the censures I believe you have deserved for your actions and plainly evident DICTATORIAL attitude, as well as the DECEITS by which you have INDULGED them, thus far, with relatively little opposition. As an absurdistlibertarian I am tolerant of much diversity and forgiving of many errors, and would pardon many from needless punishments, where others are inclined to be absolutist legalists who believe all that matters is what they can SAY and FORMULATE, and if their authoritarian and narcissistic appetites and the artificial rules they seek to promote idolatrously to the advantages of their own personal prestige and power are not deferred to, indulged, pampered, or automatically deferred to by others, they quite often obsessively turn nihilistic, and automatically tyrannous and terroristic to any criticism or defiance, inclined to denying that there is any worth outside of their ways, or even in any way at all, and eager to punish others to the limits of their abilities to deny or denigrate the actual laws of Reality, which do place limits on the absurdities of absolutists, something that many absurdists have long been aware of, in ways most absolutists ignore to their own peril.
I have NEVER sought to FORBID the stylings you seem to prefer, especially when it is used in some of the works you wish to IMPORT material from, but I am AGAINST the INVASIVE, and INTRUSIVE application of it where it is NOT wanted, NOT needed, and has REPEATEDLY been REJECTED by MOST who have worked here.
Gracie Allen, in a moment of Grace, wisely declared: Never place a period where God has placed a comma. I am inviting you to be more rationally balanced and fair, and while I can accept IMPORTS in whatever style is convenient for you to NEVER more seek to place an UNNEEDED DOT where whatever divine or popular will might be manifested, USUALLY place NOTHING at all. This might be from natural aesthetic and practical concerns, or simple-minded indifference to the matter, but it plainly IS he PREFERENCE of MOST. I certainly do NOT seek to promote absolutist SLAVERY to ANY norms that can be DEVISED, but NEITHER do I promote slavery and submission to ABNORMAL IMPOSITIONS of ABNORMAL STYLES upon the work of ALL. As an ethical absurdist I am inviting you to temper yourself more, and be more attentive to the actual NEEDS of the moment and of Eternal matters, NOT bounded by mortal wills to impose ARTIFICIAL marks and bounds where there NEED be NONE. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are too quick to characterize a mere stylistic difference of opinion as malice. I'm adding periods to the ends of citation sentences, not putting children in chains and sending them into the salt mines. BD2412T16:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oh, do PARDON me, for my apparent oversight in some regards. There CERTAINLY are worse people with more severe will to absolutely impose their will on others than you. That is apparently sufficient to JUSTIFY it in YOUR mind then: that you are just a trivial and relatively unimportant, and perhaps even well intentioned gnatsie spreading the pollution of UNNEEDED and UNDESIRED dots which I have long likened to gnat turds everywhere you CAN, in what I have long been inclined to characterize as "gnat-shit crazy" ways, relying on the apathy of others to let you permanently go on with such impositions, and NOT anything so severely despicable or fearsome as a genuine Nazi official with such power and will to oppress others in ways more obviously and severe. I will grant you that, that you certainly are clearly nowhere near as bad as a Nazi absolutist authoritarian or a totally deranged nihilist ready to enslave others or let them be enslaved so long as they themselves are free to oppress or simply remain comfortably numb. But I will not grant you pardon from serving as an example of gnatsie absolutism, which is quite extensive where even clever people behave literally as nitwits, with little more clear sense of decency than a gnat might have, willing to irritate others, and use and misuse and abuse others from misplaced sense of pride and vanity, OFTEN going so far as to find ways to subtly or overtly place MANY limits on Freedom of Speech, and the statement of genuine and honest opinions.
You have said that the barbs of my words are "cruel" — I will certainly grant that they can seem so, and I grant that they are harsh, and deliberately meant to be, but I do not believe that such harsh words and honest observations and testimony of true opinions are unwarranted or unnecessary, especially when I believe that they plainly hit a nerve of general truth, amidst growing mountains of gnat-turds, and other forms of mendacity which is commonly called "Bullshit" which have been growing here for years. I truly hope that you can eventually come to laugh at some of the ignorance and confusion which has long been manifested in some of your actions and apparent attitudes as much as I sometimes can, when I am not honestly irritated by them. I truly believe you are generally a well intentioned person, and certainly would NOT characterize you otherwise, as yet, and wish you well, generally — but cannot and do not wish you any success in your efforts to make ever more unjust gnatsie impositions.— CHEERS! ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are mistaken about the periods, though. Periods are beautiful. They impart finality where things are indeed finished, and it is time to move on to the next thing. I imagine that this is why the authors of the sources from which I draw use them. BD2412T17:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are again attempting to confute matters, or are simply confused, for I have previously stated I certainly have no objections to periods at end of sentences, and can agree that they are INDEED a beautiful means of INDICATION of an end of a grammatical sentence or statement, but that such dots as are useful with grammatical sentences, and some mechanistic forms of citation, are neither necessary or generally desirable in the forms of citation LONG used here, and like MANY needless things, in such situation, become UGLY impositions. Where the info lines below quotes contain sentences or arguably resemble such, I do use them, but otherwise they are unneeded and distracting forms of simplistic ugliness, to my mind, and I believe to the minds of many others, as they are NOT generally used, and have long been abandoned in both titles and subtitles of various sorts, where they once were sometimes used, but now almost never are (outside of notation indicating a quote or an actual sentence of some other sort). ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply
WHY, with so MUCH that is of actual WORTH and general desirability to be done on this project, you persist in PERNICIOUS efforts to IMPOSE a generally UNDESIRED styling which has repeatedly been rejected by MOST who have edited here, and EXPRESSLY so by most who have commented upon the issue, is something that will probably long be wondered at, but though it is clearly something that will eventually have to be resolved more clearly, there are other matters that continue to have priority concern with me. You clearly seem mentally distressed and intent on spiteful pollution of the pages with these distasteful efforts, and I probably will make even further commentary on it within the next month, but there are many more urgent and relatively simple matters to attend to now, and in coming weeks, and though I will continue to clean up the pages into such styles as HAVE been generally approved and accepted here, it is NOT going to be my primary concern on most days, despite the fact that IMPOSING the UNPOPULAR style, clearly AGAINST the preferences of MOST, on MANY pages at at time, seems to be a quite contemptible priority with you. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'll tell you, when I imported the tens of thousands of quotes from Hoyt's, Bartlett's, Harbottle, the Dictionary of Burning Words, the Dictionary of Legal Quotations, and Respectfully Quoted, I asked the community for help and got precious little, so I'm kind of used to going it alone. BD2412T03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
NONE of us, within Humanity, go at anything entirely alone, ever. There are many things which isolate us and many things which indicate and reveal and permit diverse forms of Universals, Unity and Uniqueness. We ALL have our various interests, priorities and aims, some of them quite harmonious, and easily brought into concord with many of those of others, and some of them not so easily reconciled with what can be perceived as greater, lesser, or merely differing aims. It is quite petulant to be resentful that others do not share some of your particular interests, aims or tastes, but this is tolerable, and even understandable, to some degree, in various ways. It is quite another thing to imply or insist that IMPOSING your particular tastes in formatting citations, in disregard and scorn as to the clear preferences of MOST others, is anything remotely resembling actual service to others, who your are clearly rating, by the very TYPE of your actions and attitudes, as INNATELY your INFERIORS in WORTHINESS of CONSIDERATION. This is clearly something something worthy of justifiable disdain and ridicule rather than any form of enduring admiration.
I believe quite strongly that it is QUITE IMPROPER by any viable ethical principles or rationality to deliberately IMPOSE these undesired stylings which, are generally NOT popular, have been repeatedly rejected, on increasing HUNDREDS of pages, AGAINST the will of most, often IMPLYING they are ENFORCEMENT of some MANDATE other than YOUR OWN, and disregardful and sometimes clearly derisive of requests to desist in such behavior. The first entreaties were milder, and treated with disregard, so my assertions regarding this unethical behavior has indeed been increasingly harsh in the candor of my contempt for your contemptuous behavior.
This is NOT "going it alone" in any innocent or innocuous way, or even humbly heroic or saintly ways as might be ethically appreciated and admired, it is arrogantly going AGGRESSIVE quite AGAINST the plainly evident preferences of MOST, and the EXPRESS preferences of most of those who have commented on the issues, in ways which I continue to assert are quite unethical.
It is your proper prerogative to do as you will, in seeking to import quotes, from sources you find convenient for your apparent preference for bulk importations, and the proper prerogative of others to do as they will in adding from sources they find interesting, usually in less extensive imports.
Though I myself have preferred to do sometimes tedious work of adapting citations to the standard citation stylings which were established at the very start of this project, I can hold that it is also quite proper to accept a styling in such imports and NOT demand that you or others do work to make them to conform to what had been generally accepted. For years I did some much cleaning up of these pages myself, to fit the generally accepted standards here, with little contention or controversy. Only in the last few years have you become increasingly aggressive in IMPOSING a generally rejected style and ignoring all objections or sometimes casually MOCKING them with comments that it is EASY for you do, with bots, and sometimes acknowledging it is DIFFICULT and TEDIOUS for people to undo, these UNDESIRED changes without undoing some slightly desirable ones, though USUALLY these are quite TRIVIAL, such as the removal of a few blank spaces at the end of lines, and occasionally additions of hypertext links of a few words.
I believe you are rational and knowledgeable enough to recognize many of the unethical and deliberately deceitful methods of imposition, which you are REGULARLY employing in your actions and edits, and in the comments by which you summarize them. I have come to doubt your inclination or capacities to easily recognize or acknowledge the extreme contemptibility of some of them, but I believe this too might eventually occur, to your embarrassment and disgrace, though that might take some time which I believe is better used on other things, and is something that is NOT something I actually desire, to the extent it can be avoided without permitting far worse disgrace to this project and the dignity of some of those who regularly edit it. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply
Trolling vandalism
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, add nonsense pages, or pages for nonnotable subjects, you may be blocked from editing Wikiquote.
As you seem to be a gnatsie troll-vandal who has previously afflicted the site, one sad, pathetic thing which is clearly evident is that you seem determined to waste other people's time as well as your own in trivial pissant antics designed to irritate others like some sort of demented gnat. It would be good for you and everyone else if you were to actually try to find something more worth everyone's while to do with your life. Read a good book, see a good movie, listen to good music or study things which are interesting, and find ways to be appreciative and helpful to others. You will be able to become much happier than anyone stupidly obsessed with finding ways to bother others ever can be. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
As you are well aware, there is NO consensus for USING the period where it is NOT grammatically or stylistically necessary, and this and MUCH consensus against NOT doing so here from the start of the project. Though others have occasionally used it, you seem intent on increasingly making others BELIEVE it necessary, and I have increasingly needed to assert that there is NO NEED to retain, maintain or IMPOSE, ENDNOTE formatting relatively rarely used for INTERLINEAR citations. I expect this issue and many others will have to be resolved more extensively soon, but again I have other priorities requiring my attention for at least a couple hours, and must be leaving. May you take time to reflect on what I believe to be errors on your part which will eventually prove very embarrassing to you, and despite this burden, I truly hope you find happiness in the coming days. Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) + tweakReply
ACTUALLY, there IS — as manifest by the preferences of MOST people who have worked on this wiki for MANY years. ONLY you are obsessively insistent on placing that unneeded mark where it is clear others do NOT feel ANY need for it nor want it — as has been repeatedly pointed out to you by me and a few others for a few years now. I really don’t have much more time to stick around, but — so it goes.… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have come across many, many pages that had fully punctuated citations before I ever touched them. Obviously, I am not the only editor who considers this correct. BD2412T14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are again being LEGALISTICALLY DECEITFUL and EXTREMELY DECEPTIVE and CONTEMPTUOUS of MANY ASPECTS of TRUTH. You have been editing MANY, MANY more pages than such as those. I too have come across a few pages where this style has been used by others, ESPECIALLY after your MASSIVE one-person campaign to INFEST as MANY HUNDREDS OF PAGES as you CAN with SUCH stylings, so as to make it SEEM the preferable or even OFFICIAL norm, when it is NOT. You might go on for some time yet, content in your very closed minded satisfaction of imagining yourself being able to close the issue entirely and forever to the advantage of yourself or your existing preferences. I assert that this already has been to your enduring disgrace, in more ways than you might deem likely or possible, and I believe that this will be made plain within the next year. I am patient with many forms of stupidity and arrogance, as I will gradually make more plain, but at this point, knowing what I know, in regard to many things, I do not believe some of your most pernicious forms of arrogance and deceit will stand in any position of honor or pride for much more than a few months into the coming year. I do hope that you come to eventually see some of the ethical principles you have been ignoring or slighting in various ways, and can be spared further disgraces than you have already inflicted on your own character in these past months and years. I continue to believe you are capable of much good, and generally inclined to it, but I do not have any delusions that you are entirely trustworthy at this point, and in some ways not much more than many of the other more generally despised troll-vandals going about in assaults upon the preferred norms of MOST others. May you have a Good Yule, Happy Hanukkah, Fun Festivus, Merry Christmas, Kindly Kwanzaa and Blessed New Year.Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
From my perspectives, your actions and attitude remains contemptible, deceitful, arrogant and ridiculous in more ways than you seem cognizant of. I truly pity you, and may you get better soon. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
From my perspective, I hope that you learn the difference between "vandalism" and a mere difference of opinion over style. Cheers! BD2412T16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
From my perspectives your perspectives seem very limited, and many statements about them overt attempts to limit those of others. To TRY to characterize this is "a mere difference of opinion over style" is itself a DECEITFUL statement, such as MANY you PERSISTENTLY make. It is a matter of the CURRENT and CONTINUING INFLICTION by ONE person, METHODICALLY in a quite VANDALBOT type way, of a citation style NEVER accepted as the NORM here, REPEATEDLY REJECTED as NOT DESIRED by MOST others, that has been clearly REPUDIATED by MOST others who have as yet commented on the matter, when it has been raised several times in recent years, and you keep making attempts to OBSCURE or DIMINISH awareness or attention to the RELEVANCE or SIGNIFICANCE of such FACTS, so long as there are not "official" and formal mandates as yet asserted upon the matter, which you are well aware are very difficult to either devise or get many people involved with in straightforward or unrestrained ways, so carefully crafted by generally well intentioned fools or ill-intentioned cowards and villains have been some general statements effectively suppressing or discouraging various forms of HONESTY and CANDOR about MANY things within the Wikimedia projects, which have largely fostered, and been nurtured by the development of various cliques, and has worked to discourage much INVOLVEMENT by people outside of them. To even make so simply honest a statement of opinion can incur the wrath of the most persistently paranoid and malicious of the obnoxious, and has contributed immensely to the diminishment of the ranges of people actually involved in the Wikimedia projects, which was one of the things I was beginning to be more expressive about in 2009 when suddenly disputes long held more discretely, were exposed in manners highly prejudicial against me, and I believe against MANY forms of genuine justice and proper freedoms on the wikis.
I VERY CLEARLY know the difference between straightforward honesty and corruptive hypocrisy, often couched quite professionally in words which seem smugly, cynically and condescendingly designed to disguise and deceive, or hide and obscure a great deal of relevant truth, and make foul seem fair, and even make fairness seem foul. I know that when I am dealing with people behaving in cowardly or villainous manners that it is not always "tactful" to declare them cowardly or villainous, and thus sometimes many who might otherwise be very respectable or elevated in their actions and attitudes, descend into such acts of sheer pettiness and mendacity that they truly become ridiculous in ways which are obvious to any but the most ridiculously deluded.
As I continue to have MANY other matters to attend to, I don’t plan to immediately address this one THOROUGHLY right now, but after finishing up some important work on some other major endeavors by March or April, I might direct more attention to it and related issues. Until whatever time comes for further debate, I wish you well and hope you will desist from disgracing yourself further than you already have. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaksReply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello BD2412,
I noticed you recently blocked Stemoc and I think there might be some misunderstanding in play. I think, from what I can see in the edits, that he was attempting to revert vandalism from Vandalism-only user Atom Walsch. You seem to have weirdly mass reverted Stemoc, only to end up reverting yourself after as Atom's edits were indeed vandalism. User:Stemoc is a definitively not a SPA as you claimed, and has been a productive Wikimedian for many years, both as Cometstyles and his current account. I would suggest that you review the matter once again, as it seems very weird to me. SnowolfHow can I help?05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since you and Kalki appear have finished your miniature debate, I'd like to point out something else. Its not that I have anything against peace or metaphysical aspects, but that's quite literally all Kalki proceeds create pages about. This wouldn't bother me in most cases, but he seems to have an iron fist over the quotes of the day page. Anything that goes on the polls, that isn't "transcendental" or "flowery", Kalki proceeds to gather a coalition of "borderline militant hippies" to vote it down, so nothing with basic logic or reason can win and become quotation of the day. Since I gather you don't mind basic logic I was curious as to whether or not they're is a method of, not dethroning him per say, but just making him back off slightly. Abattoir666 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, Kalki consistently works on QOTD; often no one else does, so I'm glad to have him doing it at all. Have you appealed to him directly on this issue? BD2412T00:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Emergency! Help!
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For the love of God (or whatever deity), please block the serial vandal "Alabaster" at once! He's going around reverting randomly, creating meaningless articles filled with gibberish, vandalizing people's user pages and even threatening bodily harm. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I could go on, but clearly those "comments", which are actually disguised fake-votes, and attempts at canvassing, are a misuse of the comment section, and inappropriate there. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
BD2412, I will only comment to you specifically to say that I've kept to that interaction ban and to my knowledge I have not referred to or interacted with the other party, I'm not sure the same is true in reverse but I will respectfully defer to your better judgment about that, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no doubt that you are yourself able to see the differences in circumstances. Please note, if you look at my archive of contributions, you will note that I have made a great many pages here. The reason that I have done so is that I enjoy building Wikiquote; I do not enjoy moderating disputes, and would be grateful for the opportunity to avoid that part of the job. BD2412T20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, re your contributions, I have always felt that whatever we add to Wikiquote, after you finished transcluding Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, is an "extra". That said, blocking people doesn't take much time. You blocked me, more than once, for the same reason. It would appear, judging from block logs, that only I violated the interaction ban—not because it's true, but because you are too afraid to block the other party. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
(Since I was pinged here, I should clarify that in the linked discussion I did not refer to an automatic expiration, but to a time after which the parties might appeal to have the ban lifted. This is typical of the way community and arbitration sanctions are handled at Wikipedia when the duration is indefinite.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think the substance of the complaint and the context of the infraction are sufficiently minor that the warning you gave addresses it adequately; and I think the tone of remarks in this thread suggests the time is not ripe for lifting the ban. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your moderating words — and please desist from imposing a style most reject.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I appreciate your moderating words on the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) page, and thank you for that. Yet, I am requesting you desist in making stylistic changes to existing citations, such as we have regularly disagreed about. Even if I could, I would not immediately block you for defying what is the NORM, but not yet any "official policy", but your addition of a punctuation style that is NOT necessary and has repeatedly been determined to be an unneeded and unwanted use of an extraneous styling which is clearly AGAINST community consensus is something I sincerely consider to be unethical and something of a smug bit of trolling. I am aware that it might be some months yet before the issue can be resolved clearly and finally, and even then, if things go well, from my perspectives, I would assert you are welcome to add it with material you add, but to insist on it remaining or to add the punctuation stylings to other pages is I believe a rather bad faith abuse of good faith efforts. I hope we can come to better understandings soon.Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaksReply
My apologies
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Per your request, I confirm I've read your comment and agree with your judgment and your assessment. My apologies, that one was indeed my mistake. Noted. Again, sorry about that! -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Asking socks to self-disclose
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
[This is a formality for completeness, not an accusation, of course. This is a copy of a notice placed by Cirt on user talk pages. He apparently overlooked you, probably because you did not vote, but only commented. I corrected the page link. You may respond here, it is not necessary to respond on the page mentioned. Your response, if any, will be noted there.]
For the record, I am not the sockmaster, nor am I affiliated with the sockpuppet accounts in any way whatsoever. I would also note that Billinghurst did specify that it was someone who had voted in the discussion, which I have not done. Also, please note that Billinghurst also specified that Kalki was not the sockmaster, and obviously has not voted in the discussion either. Cheers. BD2412T17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure if I've mentioned it before, but:
Thanks very much for creating the page, Quackery !
It dovetails very nicely with the page I've created on Snake oil.
Thanks again for this valuable creation contribution to Wikiquote,
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I think you are going to have to close it. The only other active bureaucrat is UDScott, but he supported Kalki in the RfA, and you only commented. The consensus is very clear, so I can't see how you closing it would be controversial. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
and on another related note, I think its about time this wiki had its own community elected Checkusers and since you are the most active and experienced admin on this wiki and you have previously requested it, I urge you to consider running again...the recent debacle has shown that this wiki needs atleast ONE Checkuser.--Stemoc02:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
If nominated, I will go forward with the nomination. I think we need to get at least three editors to stand for the position, though. That way, if 2/3 get the requisite votes, we'll meet the threshold for local checkusers. We definitely need them. BD2412T23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Your removal of comments by myself and Cirt
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
[18]. I made my comment because there is some indirect reference to the deleted user page elsewhere, and my comment places your question in context. I don't understand why you removed my comment and that of Cirt. They are not disruptive, nor provocative. May I revert that? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I didn't mean to delete anything - I was restoring an older version of the page from which I thought the preceding reply had been deleted (apparently your comment was restored in the interim, but I had left the page open for so long that I was still looking at this version of it, and not aware of that intermediate restoration). Thanks for the notice, and cheers! BD2412T23:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that you are noted as inactive on the list of administrators, but you seem to be around from time to time. Do you want to remove that note? BD2412T04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, I haven't been especially active as a user, but I feel the WQ:ADMIN tag of "inactive" is merited because I haven't done any admin work for quite a while. I don't really feel I should do anything unless & until I re-read relevant policies and practices, for the same reason I always cautioned many admin candidates in their hurry to get admin powers. In fact, several times a year I consider requesting a de-listing as admin. I guess I hang onto it for the possibility I might become active again, but I'd probably agree to a de-listing if folks don't feel comfortable with my absence and rusty skills. ~ Jeff Q(talk)07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
VOC discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
OK, I closed the discussion, but what is the next step? I assume it is to ask a steward to remove the rights, but is there a formal way to do this? Who are the stewards? Unfortunately, my experience has been much limited in areas such as these (I tend to be more narrowly focused on the ins and out of our little community rather than the wiki world at large. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is only a formality at this point. Stewards are sometimes not terribly careful and will approve sysop removal requests on the argument that a local 'crat can quickly fix any error without fuss. Stewards, very much, are not taking rights away from bureaucrats. They will respect them.)
Closes should be signed. That was a problem with Cirt's close, and remained a problem. So I have fixed it. The close should be explicit. Technically, "request granted" isn't a close, it's a remark about the effect. However, we are getting close to proper procedure here.
This would be a more standard sequence: There is a discussion that lasts at least as long as the period stated. At any point after that, a crat may close with "consensus is...." and then state it. More reasons may be given, the 'crat's own analysis, for example. Then the 'crat would take this to meta for action, if the close is removal.
When closes have been delayed, I have requested 'crat close. To do this, I made the request on the Talk page of every 'crat, to avoid any appearance of canvassing for a favorable close. Once, when there was delay in response, I went to meta and asked for steward review. I disclosed this locally, as I recall. When that was seen, a local 'crat came out of seclusion and closed.
A 'crat may close contrary to apparent consensus. It's rare, but possible. This may be based on insufficiency of arguments, on the presence of misleading evidence, or on apparent improper voting. This is a reason why non-crat requests at meta should be subject to high scrutiny. Crats have been given the power, in adminship matters, to determine local "consensus," which can vary from vote counts!
Non-crat closes are possible, but not advisable if a 'crat is available. Non-crat closes should be handled much more carefully. Consensus should be clear, and any defect in the close (non-crat, or involved close) should be disclosed.
A crat could close for removal even if a majority support keeping, based on a demonstrated lack of community trust. This would very much not be advised if the support shown were adequate for an original sysopping; a 'crat willing to put into the effort might consider all the votes and the level of participation in the community involved with each. The 'crat may also extend the time for voting, may site-message a discussion, etc. That is only necessary if there is significant controversy. In this case, controversy (disagreement with desysopping) was weak, and not likely to create disruption with a contrary close.
This was a good case to establish procedure, precisely because it wasn't seriously controversial, once InvisibleSun showed up and consented, providing further information (i.e., no reasonable possibility of near-term administrative activity). Absent emergency (or long delay), closes should not be requested at meta by non-crats. What that request was doing was asking a steward to assess the discussion. Probably didn't happen. The steward possibly didn't notice that there was anything irregular about the request. I've seen them be incautious about that. But if the steward did look at the discussion, they don't necessarily care much about fine points.
It can get much dicier and uglier.
What I'm describing is actual practice, as far as I've seen it, with some substantial experience on Wikiversity, as a (probationary) sysop there, three periods, as the target of removal discussions, under conditions of high controversy, and, as well, substantial personal experience observing steward behavior, including making an emergency desysop request at meta as a non-'crat. Granted, by the way. I disclosed the context. My request was eventually ratified by a 'crat, but not before it had been actioned.
So I know some of the extremes. Hence what I suggest as guideline is based on being able to handle the extremes with minimal disruption. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but sometimes mistakes are made in the process that clearly don't affect the outcome, and it's a waste of time to go on and on about them. BD2412T18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
re Inactive admins.
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I have dropped a note on the talk page of every admin who has been inactive since 2010 or earlier. I also dropped a note on the Wikipedia talk pages of those who were recently active there. If I hear no response by the weekend after next, I will also send emails. BD2412T04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is now a local page on every wiki to request a rename, though they are still managed centrally. Usurps still need to be handled through m:SRUCsDrewth03:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your help with the people by state cats - obviously it's a much faster process using AWB (I've actually never learned how to use such tools - I'm definitely more of a content person here and less of a technology person). Although I will say that one advantage of my plodding through was that I was also correcting categories (and removing redundancies) as I went. But again, thanks for the assist. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
5-3 is a majority, but consensus is something more than a majority, it is a general feeling of the community. Right now, it seems that the general feeling of the community is that we should establish some standards for de-adminning, rather than doing it ad hoc. BD2412T15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I too agree with the decision, and that it is vitally important to acknowledge the distinctions between simple majorities of those who happen to be active in relatively transient issues or queries which often are of relatively little or no interest concern to most people, and the general consensus of most, which I believe would usually involve a supermajority of at least two-thirds or more of those voting who are most regularly involved on a project. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Reply: I'm just not seeing that if this were a Request for Adminship, that you would have promoted the user with that reverse (three saying keep as admin, and five saying not to have the user as admin). -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, in that case, it would have had a similar result - meaning inconclusive result and no consensus for granting adminship. In the absence of consensus, there should be no change to the current state when a decision is requested. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Confusing, because in this case, the discussion was held at the same location, and for double the length of time, and there still wasn't support to retain adminship. Oh well, perhaps we can revisit at a later point in time in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
The general practice is that absent a consensus in favor of changing the status quo, no change to the status quo is made. BD2412T14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. My account was compromised during my absence. Can you indefinitely block my account globally to prevent damage to all sister wiki projects? Thanks for collaborating! --BScMScMD (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have semi-protected it, which will catch most vandals; if it was fully protected, you would not be able to edit it yourself. Cheers! BD2412T18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see you created this page a long time ago, and that its first quote was Shakespeare's "let's kill all the lawyers"! I have recently written a paper on Ross's "Pie Theory", according to which the value of a company is divided into four groups, shareholders, bondholders, government and lawyers (bankruptcy costs) so maximizing the value corresponds to maximizing the first two and minimizing the latter two. :-) Just thought you might find that interesting. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Plutarch
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your deletion comment that "this one appears non-notable": Actually, it is a passable translation (but for misspelling) of a famous quotation of Plutarch. Just FYI. (I endorse the deletion because the page was an essay, not a collection of sourced, or even attributed, quotations.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Mine was just an experiment in form, rather than function, so I have no preference for the subject, but that one is a rather scary looking picture. How about the image from Marco Girolamo Vida (which you recently created)? BD2412T18:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
That has been the subject of some dispute. I think it is very helpful, and there is no rule against it, but some editors feel that it should be limited to avoid imposing our own opinions about what parts of a quote are important. BD2412T19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is a space there when I view it on my computer, but to be on the safe side I have added an to force a space. Cheers! BD2412T14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Advice on how to move forward positively and collaboratively
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
BD2412,
It's been five months since you graciously fostered an attempt at future positive interactions between myself and DanielTom.
During that time I've been less active, and I've come back to activity, quite pleased to see DanielTom contributing collaboratively and helping out our community constructively on this website.
I made overtures to move forward collaboratively with DanielTom but was told I "should be in prison".
My 2nd post, in which I apologized for past behavior and asked for advice from the user on how to move past our prior difficulties and get along collaboratively, was called "harassment".
Question: I will, of course, give it a rest from posting to this user's talk page, but I'm wondering after this much time has passed, what could be done to try to move forward positively to work together in a collaborative spirit ?
For reasons I could explain (and have explained to others), I believe the comment "DanielTom, I sincerely hope that you and your family are doing well" is a veiled threat by Cirt against the well-being of me and my family. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
DanielTom, my words were not intended to be a threat, but quite the opposite — a sincere outreach and an offering to you both of apology and to wish you well both in your life on-wiki and your real-life off-wiki. I'll refrain from referring to anyone other than yourself, DanielTom, again. And I am extremely sorry you misinterpreted my words and felt they were a threat to you. I'm quite sorry about that, DanielTom. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think that there is enough to do on Wikiquote that any two editors don't need to collaborate on anything, particularly. BD2412T22:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. I just wish there were some way to move forwards towards a general spirit of positive good faith attitudes, in the future. Any advice on how to do that? -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I can't help you there. The purpose of Wikimedia is informative, not therapeutic. If relationships with people on the Internet are causing you depression, I would suggest focusing on relationships with people you know in real life for a while. BD2412T01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good points, all. I guess I was feeling a bit disheartened by a lack of a sense of collegiality and cooperation on a Wikimedia site where "wiki" is supposed to imply positive collaboration in an ideally polite environment. I'm doing a bit better now, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Could you restore my edits on property, animal, humanity brain and cell?
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think the standards of notoriety for scientists are different than with artists; that series of words of highly memorable and the quote is highly elaborates on the theme in a way few would have thought. I think the Animatrix is considered by most people to be superior to the 2nd and third films, the second Renaissance segment in particular was supposed to be the basis of the prequel that would have been the 2nd film. I'm aware that the robot on trial is as old as the Adam Link stories if not older but the way it's worded is distinct and it is stated directly to be about property rights as well as robots. Thanks for all of your help in the past; I've been told my grammar and formatting still aren't adequate; I understand now the bare url's are as much of a problem as the dialogue quotes used to be. I also know that the about sections need some editing down, I don't think that much though overall. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please DESIST from AFFLICTING this WIKI with ANOTHER RAMPAGE of INCONSIDERATE VANDALISM.
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please DESIST from AFFLICTING this WIKI with ANOTHER RAMPAGE of INCONSIDERATE VANDALISM. You have done this in the past and it is DISGRACEFUL. Time and time again, over the YEARS the CONSENSUS of the people most active on this wiki have agreed that this is NOT a styling desired on this wiki — and you have IMPOSED your SOLITARY obsession with IMPOSING it OVER the work of others in what amounts to contemptible FANATICAL DISREGARD for the clearly stated CONSENSUS. I will call that you be blocked for a week or a month if you persist in this disregard of consensus — and might initiate a more immediate block if you persist in your disregard for the clearly stated preferences and desires of others. I defer from stating more at this time — but I will state I have contempt and disgust at your will to DISREGARD consensus and WASTE other people's time like the most petty of vandals. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Kalki has no right to block me over an editing dispute, particularly where he is undoing punctuation on pages that I created in the first place, like Last Judgment.
Note:
In some cases, a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired. Please check your block log. If no blocks are listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only: If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request (please use {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification|1=BD2412}} for notifying), replace this template with the following as notification.
{{Unblock on hold|1=blocking administrator|2=Kalki has no right to block me over an editing dispute, particularly where he is undoing punctuation on pages that I created in the first place, like [[Last Judgment]].|3=~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification, replacing {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.
{{unblock reviewed|1=Kalki has no right to block me over an editing dispute, particularly where he is undoing punctuation on pages that I created in the first place, like [[Last Judgment]].|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the request (note that you may NOT unblock your own account), replace the unblock template with {{tlx|unblock|reason}}, and post the following directly underneath the unblock template:
Objections to disgraceful and obnoxious impositions AGAINST the preferences of MOST — and an appeal to your Humanity
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Despite a generally apparent geniality evident to most people, including myself, I assert that you are once again being DISGRACEFULLY UNETHICAL in your current actions and efforts. Please DESIST from your current actions, and apparent aims, which clearly amount to IGNORING or denying long established preferences and norms of MOST, in your "drive" to conform everything to such 19th century stylings as have NEVER been accepted as the norm — and rejected by MOST people EVERY previous time the issue has been argued.You are again creating VAST alterations that are a disgraceful wasting of your own time, and even more disgraceful wasting of OTHERS times and efforts to abide by civilly established NORMS of appearance and behavior. I still genuinely consider many of your current and past actions to be disrespectful vandalism and trolling and an EXTREMELY obnoxious disregard for fundamental ethical and rational principles with which this wiki was established. I believe that you are pressing your ability to be arrogantly inconsiderate of the repeatedly manifest and asserted preferences of MOST others, because, you know that there are some people who are innately hostile and resentful of my presence here, and you know that they are eager to find any excuses, by hook or by crook to control and constrain me in unethical ways, and are quite willing to side with you, and allow you to abuse and misuse your editing privileges with impunity. Thus I believe you are now simply aggressively trolling, and misusing and abusing both your editing privileges and your admin status to IGNORE and DENY ethical imperatives and repeatedly established NORMS of behavior, and are willing to make officious and official sounding subterfuges and MISLEAD others to conform to your preferences in UNETHICAL ways. You are currently insisting pages should be reverted to the preferences evident in such states they were created in — which is NOT an established NORM. IF it WERE so there would be an INFERNAL MESS because of the vast variety of SLOPPY styles by new editors, or deliberately INCONSIDERATE ones as you are currently imposing, and there would be as much justification in reverting to ANY or ALL of these, as in doing what you are currently doing, and have often done, in MASSIVE sessions of personal AGGRESSION against the general norms over the years. There is NOT any "ownership" of pages accepted here — and it is PLAIN that IF you wish to DECEITFULLY persist in IMPLYING such on some, which represent pages created in such stylings as you prefer, there are HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of pages at a time you have been quite HYPOCRITICALLY, WILLING and EAGER to IGNORE, disregard and dismiss the PRIOR states of pages edited by MULTIPLE authors — which have generally conformed to styles quite different than those you regularly have sought to IMPOSE on them and most others. Clearly KNOWING this, you yet seem willing to insist those created by your PASTING of 19th century TEXTS should RETAIN the 19th century stylings you prefer RATHER THAN those which have repeatedly been preferred on MOST pages by MOST editors, and at EVERY contention which has occurred throughout several YEARS of contending against his arrogant and quite DISGRACEFUL attempts at AGGRESSIVELY imposing them, in disregard and DENIAL of the MANIFEST norm AND the explicitly expressed MAJORITY consensus, of those who have commented upon the matter, EVERY time such contentions have been made. I have no doubt you know it angers me, when you behave so aggressively and arrogantly, but it also saddens me that you remain so irrationally belligerent, against the quite evident preferences of MOST people involved in over a decade of work here. I pity you, and I do not ask or demand your pity for me — I do at this point, simply implore you to develop simple human decency far more than you yet have. I have MANY more things to do, and I will not pretend to be happy about your persistence in such actions as are effective wasting MUCH of my own and many other people's limited time as well as your own, in matters that I assert are NOT merely petty impositions, but EXTREMELY petty-minded impositions. May greater understanding GROW among us all, of ways of genuine shows of respectfulness of Humanity and concerns for the ever developing and persisting norms, that are not bound to shallow formalities or mechanistic tropes.Soitgoes…⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ…Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaksReply
I am quite aware that you are generally more intelligent than most, and might perhaps be genuinely ethical in most regards, as MOST people ARE, but your attempts to label your current activities a "March 2016 admirably consistent punctuation and spacing drive" to me is simply obnoxious and contemptible trolling. And I believe that you are quite aware of that. I do NOT wish to spend time contending on this issue, as I, like you probably ALSO do, have MANY more important and desirable things to attend to. I hope to make many more of my points clear to you within a month or two, but truly would prefer that you simply desist from such MASSIVE alterations of pages, until such a time as a clear and definite consensus, such as has PREVIOUSLY been expressed by a few of those willing to get involved, SEVERAL times, can once more, and perhaps more extensively and definitely be determined. I would NOT expect that to be JUSTLY and PROPERLY done in anything less than a month. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaksReply
Block log note
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
BD2412,
I'm sorry you were erroneously blocked.
I've made a note in your block log to reflect this disturbing situation at block log link.
It would be difficult for me to take a position on the latter proposition without appearing to present a bias in the matter. However, I'm certainly not coming to Kalki's defense over this. BD2412T03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well a few options would be to do nothing, wait a bit seeing if there's continuation of extreme recalcitrance and then file a request for removal of the tools, or simply file a request for removal of the tools now based upon community consensus at Village Pump thread permalink -- "Brief vandal block on BD2412". Still debating what the next best course of action would be to take here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
In retrospect, given the history here, I'd rather you not take the lead on doing anything. I generally prefer to wait and see if things improve, anyway. Cheers! BD2412T04:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, BD2412! I have an odd question for you, as you're the only admin I see on both WQ & WT who's edited both recently. Do you know if something strange has happened to en:Wiktionary? Specifically, I tried to jump over there from another wiki and it didn't sign me in automatically, even though I've been on there many times in the past. I jumped all over other WM wikis in multiple languages to verify SUL was still working. I even re-ran Login unification status] to verify I'm still known to en:WT. Yet it insists I log in explicitly.
I was going to post a question to its "Beer parlour", but I noticed that there weren't any posts under the April 2016 heading. Then I saw that WT:BP's history page doesn't even show any edits since Nov 2015 (despite a supposed 31 Mar 2016 edit)! My computer-security spidey-sense really started clanging, even though the secure-connection info seems to look good.
Do you know if en:WT has somehow disengaged themselves from the single-user-login system? I really don't want to log in manually until I'm sure I'm just being needlessly paranoid. Thanks for any suggestions. ~ Jeff Q(talk)22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I get logged in there automatically when I jump over. It is correct that the Beer Parlour has not been edited since November of last year (save for an edit I just made), since we now transclude discussions into it through another route. BD2412T03:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Jeff Q. The login issue looks like a system hiccup, because it is currently working okay for me. Have you tried repeatedly, posting elsewhere and going back, or was it a one-time incident? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
It continued for another day on several sites (even on en:WQ and en:WP once each), then went away completely without any effort on my part. I hate those kinds of problems. Thanks for the ideas! ~ Jeff Q(talk)08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Doesn't this description (and the previous ones) make it seem, falsely, that Clinton was defending the girl, and not the man? (At least it does to me.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have added clarifying punctuation. Maybe it can be worded more clearly than that, but we should avoid making the citation into an essay. BD2412T00:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
