User talk:BD2412/Archive 5

Add topic
Active discussions

Status: Active. bd2412 T

Thanks muchEdit

Thank you for your copy editing help at page Adrianne Wadewitz, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks - it is nice to be appreciated for it. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixing line breaks that are not brokenEdit

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)

  • 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. BD2412 T 03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior is pathetic and contemptible in more ways than I currently have time to expose.Edit

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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • 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! BD2412 T 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
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) + tweak
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). BD2412 T 16:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. BD2412 T 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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)

Christina Hoff SommersEdit

Hello. Can you tell me the quotes that were in this page prior to its deletion? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior remains despicable.Edit

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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 04:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • 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) +tweaks
      • 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. BD2412 T 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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 absurdist libertarian 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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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. BD2412 T 16:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. BD2412 T 17:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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) + tweaks
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)
  • 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. BD2412 T 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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) + tweaks

Trolling vandalismEdit

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)

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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) + tweak
You are entitled to your opinion. As you know, there is no consensus against punctuating pages. BD2412 T 02:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. BD2412 T 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
From my perspective, I hope that you learn the difference between "vandalism" and a mere difference of opinion over style. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
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) + tweaks

Your recent block of StemocEdit

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. Snowolf How can I help? 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Terrible mistake on my part! BD2412 T 06:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Debate With KalkiEdit

  • 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)
    • 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? BD2412 T 00:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Emergency! Help!Edit

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 Barrister 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • This seems to have been handled. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, mentioned your commentEdit

FYI, I've mentioned your comment, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • BTW, isn't this a direct (as opposed to indirect) violation of our "interaction ban"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For some reason, I had in the back of my mind a thought that the interaction ban was time-limited, and had expired (I was probably thinking of Ningauble's "six months or a year" comment at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/022#Feuding between DanielTom and Cirt as a ceiling rather than a floor). I will caution Cirt, although I'd like to think that the ban can be lifted at this point. BD2412 T 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • Then the topic ends here. BD2412 T 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
          • BD2412, last time you blocked me for 3 months, citing "Violation of terms of interaction ban". Thanking me today was a direct interaction. Why don't you try being fair and consistent? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
            • 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. BD2412 T 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
              • 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)
                • (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)
                  • @Ningauble, what do you think of the current situation (i.e. the complaint at hand)? BD2412 T 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
                    • 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)

Thank you for your moderating words — and please desist from imposing a style most reject.Edit

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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

My apologiesEdit

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)

Asking socks to self-discloseEdit

[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.]

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted [commented] before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

(signed, Cirt)

This notice placed by --Abd (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this notification by Abd, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
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. BD2412 T 17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very muchEdit

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,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Added more evidenceEdit

Had to add more evidence, after claims were made that my actions were somehow either factually wrong or slanderous, both quite untrue.

Other than that, I have been staying away and focusing on content.

I broke down the timeline of the claimed password reveal.

I also pointed out several discrepancies in statements made by Miszatomic.

-- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki's RfAEdit

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)

I agree - but I just got home. Give me a few minutes to settle in. BD2412 T 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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.--Stemoc 02:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412, I'd support you for Checkuser, but we'd need a minimum of two and a minimum of 25 total support votes, per m:Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me sleep on it. I'll give you an answer in the morning. BD2412 T 05:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Good song. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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. BD2412 T 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of comments by myself and CirtEdit

[1]. 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)

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! BD2412 T 23:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. --Abd (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffq inactive?Edit

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? BD2412 T 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

VOC discussionEdit

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)

Stewards are the global uber-users. The request has already been done and archived. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. BD2412 T 18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

re Inactive admins.Edit

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. BD2412 T 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:I've sent notification emails linking to your user talk page notifications, to Quadell (via en.wikipedia as his email is enabled there), Rmhermen, Iddo999, and Fys. Both MosheZadka and Nanobug don't have "email this user" enabled. -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, emailed and notified LrdChaos. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Emailed and notified RyanCross. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Emailed MosheZadka at email he provided in 2007 here [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good ideaEdit

BD2412, thanks for your good idea.

Thanks to you, we've now saved some time and don't need a separate discussion for Quadell diff.

Thanks again,

-- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


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:SRUC sDrewth 03:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a request to merge accounts - I'm not sure if that is something that is still done at all. BD2412 T 04:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


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)

It was a pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Crat to close 3 discussionsEdit

  1. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
  2. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Nanobug (inactivity discussion)
  3. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)

(Notifying all Bureaucrats on this site.)

Can you please close these above three discussions?

They've all been open beyond the requisite time period.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Brigitte BardotEdit

Hello. Could you restore this article? Maybe I can find sources for the quotes, and add a few more. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ Miszatomic (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I just sourced a quote, but will work more on it later, when I have the time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain a bit more?Edit

This one was 5-3 for removal.

Can you explain how there was consensus to keep admin rights for this user?

-- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • 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. BD2412 T 15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this statement and believe that BD2412 made the correct action regarding this discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
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: 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)
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)
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)
The general practice is that absent a consensus in favor of changing the status quo, no change to the status quo is made. BD2412 T 14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just don't think they would be promoted to admin with 5 against adminship and three in favor. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
They wouldn't, if that was what the vote was seeking. BD2412 T 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of existing admin policy?Edit

What about the violation of existing admin policy?

According to Aphaia:

"In principle, administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page. For active sysops, as well sysop candidates, it is mandatory."

That wording seems pretty clear, "mandatory" -- doesn't that mean we shouldn't have users with admin rights, that violate this policy?

-- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"For active sysops, as well sysop candidates..." — the sysop in question is inactive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Global auto-blockEdit

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)


Could you protect my user page to prevent vandalism? Thank you. 1989 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • 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! BD2412 T 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. 1989 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


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)


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)

  • I was going by the apparent attribution. The cited author (whether paraphrasing or not) appears to be non-notable. BD2412 T 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New Pages, illustratedEdit

Main Page suggestion

In my example, would your idea look something like this?→ Or would you make adjustments? If you agree, I can post it to Village pump. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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)? BD2412 T 18:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Scary looking, haha. Okay, does it look better now? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely. Of course, we could also go with Lady Godiva, but this is a family-friendly website. BD2412 T 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be too distracting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Is it helpful to add wikilinks in articles to other wikiquote pages where relevant? Thanks. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but I meant in the lede, as in Rubbish computer was a [[Wikipedia]] editor --Rubbish computer (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, links in the lede are good. BD2412 T 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Sorry if I keep bothering you, but at Prana there is a missing space in the first sentence that I can't seem to fix. I've refreshed the page and my edit was saved, so I don't really understand. Thanks, Rubbish computer (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything missing there. BD2412 T 23:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


In the first sentence, it says "Prana is theSanskrit... " It's only a little typo, but I can't fix it. Sorry to add a new section but this is awkward to edit on mobile. Rubbish computer (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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! BD2412 T 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice on how to move forward positively and collaborativelyEdit


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 ?

-- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
I think that there is enough to do on Wikiquote that any two editors don't need to collaborate on anything, particularly. BD2412 T 22:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
I would let it lie for the time being. BD2412 T 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, good advice. Hopefully time heals all wounds. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Further help, feeling a bit depressedEdit

Dear BD2412,

My offer here was rejected, after giving a w:Template:Peace dove.

I think, at this point in time, this advice you just gave me is still wise and applicable.

But I must admit, some time had already passed.

And I have to say, in addition to frustration, I'm feeling quite depressed.

Any help or advice you could give me during this time would be appreciated.


-- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • 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. BD2412 T 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • 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)

Could you restore my edits on property, animal, humanity brain and cell?Edit

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)


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) {{unblock|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.}}

I have twice attempted to Unblock you, but it says you are unblocked already — is this the case? ~ Kalki·· 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Apparently. The block seems to have expired. It was never going to stick anyway. BD2412 T 01:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quote page creation effortsEdit


Thanks very much for your quote page creation efforts.

I noticed you created the page for Supreme Court of the United States.

You may be interested to note I've created a new page for quotes related to Merrick Garland.

Have a look, feel free to help out with additional research for the page so far if you like.

Thanks again,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Objections to disgraceful and obnoxious impositions AGAINST the preferences of MOST — and an appeal to your HumanityEdit

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. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

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) + tweaks

Block log noteEdit


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.

This reflects community consensus from comments at Village Pump thread permalink -- "Brief vandal block on BD2412".

These community comments include those by Macspaunday (talk · contributions) and IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contributions) and Ningauble (talk · contributions).

Further, I agree with this comment in that thread: "This incident confirms my impression that it was a mistake for the community to restore administrator privileges to someone with such a volatile and aggressive temperament last year.".

Perhaps more should be done about this within the community to remedy this alarming situation.


-- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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! BD2412 T 04:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I wish you the best, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Paraonid about Wiktionary loginEdit

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)

  • 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. BD2412 T 03:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Glad to hear the situation self-corrected. BD2412 T 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary ClintonEdit

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)

  • I have added clarifying punctuation. Maybe it can be worded more clearly than that, but we should avoid making the citation into an essay. BD2412 T 00:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your actions are once again quite contemptible DEFIANCE and DENIAL of repeatedly maintained COMMUNITY CONSENSUS against such styling as you periodically IMPOSE.Edit

Your actions are once again quite contemptible DEFIANCE and DENIAL of repeatedly maintained COMMUNITY CONSENSUS against such styling as you periodically IMPOSE. This is plainly a habitual action unbecoming any EDITOR here, let alone an ADMIN. Were not others far more indifferent to ETHICAL and PRACTICAL concerns, and willing to turn a blind eye to your efforts to IMPOSE an UNPOPULAR and UNNECESSARY styling on as MANY pages as you CAN — primarily the work of OTHERS who implicitly REJECT such stylings, I would temporarily block you as a vandal. As such practical responses to such VANDALISM as you wantonly are inclined to indulge in seem to be something some people do not seem to believe to be appropriate, I am refraining from that, as of now — but assert that your actions and attitudes in IGNORING and DENYING the CLEAR consensus against such stylings remains MORALLY reprehensible and profoundly contemptible. I do not have much time to undo MUCH of your further rampaging AGAINST the IMPLICIT and EXPLICITY preferences of others at this time — and may not address it thoroughly for weeks or months yet — but I will take time to assert my profound and sincere belief that you have, once again, clearly exercised CONTEMPTIBLE abuses of your privileges here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 11:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

  • Please cease your personal attacks immediately. BD2412 T 12:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I will state that I firmly believe that when people are counseled against expressing their sincere opinions upon matters there are clearly deficiencies in ethical integrity at work which I can concede would take me far more time to sufficiently address than I presently have.
I will concede that matters of both greater urgency and importance currently remain for me to address elsewhere, than those of our many years-long disputes upon this matter, but I hope to be able to present a properly incisive assessment upon it before this year is over. Prior to that, many other things will probably indeed keep me from focusing very much upon it, so much as I would like to do so. I hope that you will continue to make less contentious and disrespectful edits, and stop wasting so much of the time of myself and others in mass-editing of so many pages in clear disregard and defiance of the majority of people who have expressed their opinions upon the matter here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I am making lots and lots of improvements. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if is rather Daniel Toms uncivil and disruptive behavior warrants correction?Edit

[3] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton – which quotes to highlightEdit

I agree that more images with positive quotes should be added for balance. Maybe add images for quotes complimenting Clinton that you yourself had added before? Just don't be disingenuous about your POV-pushing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Throughout my work on this project, I have added both positive and negative quotes by and about figures across the political spectrum. My "POV" is to provide the most useful page. It is clear to see, from looking at the quotes in the about section, that someone has been busy focusing on finding and adding only negative quotes, rather than providing a balanced selection. This goes even to the point of valuing non-notable quotes over easily found notable quotes, i.e. quotes that have actually been quoted in other media. BD2412 T 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: just by way of example, I created both w:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and w:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama on Wikipedia; I was consequently accused there of having two opposing political POVs. BD2412 T 19:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    What I think is "clear to see" is that you are deleting the first image (negative quote) to make way for your very biased choice of a Trump quote from 9 years ago complimenting Clinton (where he basically calls her terrific and says "she really works hard" – hardly a very "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant" quote) because you want that to be the first image. So I call it POV-pushing, because that's what it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    I would make exactly the same sort of edit if the first quote about Trump was a non-notable negative quote. The one that is there now seems positive, but I am dubious about the notability of the speaker. If it is removed, the first quote remaining would be a negative one, so something else may be in order there also. With respect to the Clinton edit, I did that as a blunt contrast to the existing use of a wholly non-notable quote apparently picked for its antipathy. Perhaps the solution is to find a truly neutral quote, although that is often difficult with polarizing figures. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well, having a racist Neo-Nazi rambling about the white race and alleged Jewish control praise Trump doesn't "seem[] positive" to me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well noted. I have removed the image highlighting quote. The quotes on the Trump sidebar are in alphabetical order of speaker. Perhaps a better "A" quote can be found. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    If the past is anything to go by, Kalki will restore that image and the one of Trump praising Clinton too. But thanks for trying to be reasonable and impartial. I concede that it's not necessarily POV-pushing to want more positive quotes highlighted in About sections. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Iliad of Homer (Alexander Pope)Edit

  • The wrath of Peleus' son, the direful spring
    Of all the Grecian woes, O goddess sing!
    • Line 1. Alternately reported as: "Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring
      Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!" in Bartlett's Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).

Pope changed the opening lines in later editions. Maybe the description can be abbreviated to:

  • Line 1. In the third edition: "Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring / Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!"

or something of that sort. What do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to take out the citation to Bartlett's? BD2412 T 13:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"Alternately reported as" is not very precise. If we source it to the third edition (1732), doesn't Bartlett's citation become superfluous? But we can leave it as is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I like having Bartlett's because it shows that this is a variation of which notice has been taken. BD2412 T 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "BD2412/Archive 5".