|135,888+||This user has made over 135,888 contributions to Wikiquote.|
Hello Kalki, on the page purpose, Rupert Loup removed a lot of your edits, as can be seen here. Could you please put them back? I cannot since the page is locked. Thank you for your time. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CC0D:2862:2E0B:1820 04:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Other activities have kept me extremely busy in the last few days, and I do not anticipate having the time to address these contentions adequately for at least another day or two — I will probably address them along with at least a few others within the next week or so, but can anticipate being delayed even in that time frame. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kalki, last month I asked if you could check out purpose, since Rupert has (for no valid reason) removed quotes you put back on it. Just wondering if you've been able to look into it? --2001:8003:4085:8100:3161:911A:953C:8F41 11:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I kept your note intact, after removing most others, and thus moved it to the top of this talk page, at that point genuinely believing I might get around to it shortly, and now put this one directly below it. I believe the entire talk page below exhibits at least a small portion of the many reasons I have not had time to deal with that situation as yet. MANY physical world projects and tasks are currently far more urgent and important for me to address than these computer tasks, and in regard to those, the contentions below have recently been consuming much of my available time here. I intend to eventually examine many situations and pages of this wiki more thoroughly as soon as possible, but I honestly CANNOT provide any definite answer as to when that will be, and it might be many weeks yet. ~ 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I quote Rupert Loup: "Roll back since no explanation in the talk page has been given in how these are closely related". That reason is more than valid enough. Otherwise, Kalki would have done something about it immediately instead of leaving the page be for six months. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this same IP has constantly been removing categories from War crimes without explanation. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I genuinely have no eagerness to get caught up in many of the contentions that have gone on in recent months, and am not extensively familiar with most of them, but I had intended to attempt to do what I can, and I don’t actually believe that after substantial work examining a page, comparing past and present states, and editing it carefully, that a simplistic rollback of them all "since no explanation in the talk page has been given in how these are closely related" entirely suffices as justification of that, but I am well aware many current disputes are often zealous contentions between competing POV presentations more than anything else. I simply have not examined most of them closely enough to know the details thoroughly or sufficiently and certainly have not had time to get extensively involved in scrutinizing them, criticizing them, accepting them or praising them. I believe my previous edits were made towards a more acceptable and generally balanced state of presentations, and though I might perceive a somewhat inconsiderate insult at the sudden revert, I do not take any great offense at it. I simply then and now have had little drive toward becoming enmired in the time-consuming sorting of such complex matters out. That is STILL the case, and even more so now, when several others have suddenly arisen. I hope to have some time to deal with yours within perhaps a week or two, but even after that I still might have too many tasks to devote much time to examining and becoming extremely attentive to what seems to me to often be edit wars between various contending factions of POV-pushing or petty pedantries on various pages. I can sympathize with many diverse advocates of many diverse issues, and like anyone, some more than others, but I do not want our pages to continue to decay towards becoming extremely imbalanced partisan POV placards without tolerance for broad diversities of views, and I have never been greatly interested in arguing over the tedium of many categories and disputes about them. In the current state of affairs, I am quite exhausted, and have many other tasks to attend to yet, and am inclined to believe it might be at least a few weeks before I even begin to have enough time to extensively engage further in some of the significant issues emerging here. ~ 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this same IP has constantly been removing categories from War crimes without explanation. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• NOTICE on formattingEdit
• February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question (20 February 2020)Edit
•• Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard discussions (24 February 2020)Edit
•• Template talk:QOTD Ranking discussions (25 February 2020)Edit
•• Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day discussions (26 February 2020)Edit
• Request strike-through of personal attacks (28 February 2020)Edit
• Role of rationale in consensus (29 February 2020)Edit
•• Request for admonition at Admin noticeboard (2 March 2020)Edit
Hi, I saw you blocked this IP address for 1 week. I think you should block it indefinitely because when It’s block-free, it’ll continue. Thanks.( （Talk） 10:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
- User accounts which have been used only for spam or vandalism are usually blocked indefinitely very swiftly, but unless there is a clear history of repeated periods of vandalism, we usually avoid long blocks on IP addresses, as many vandals change these frequently. Usually a day is more than sufficient on most IP addresses, and I seldom block them more than a week or a month, save where they have a long history of abuses, and then I might block them 6 months or even a year. There are sometimes "range blocks" of many IP addresses made for long periods, but I rarely have made these, save when there has clearly been a definite range of IPs involved in a spate of vandalism. ~
10:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I don’t have any experience as an admin anyway. ( （Talk） 10:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
• Please strike through comments involving Nazism (3 March 2020)Edit
•• Accusation of "Incivility from an administrator" at Admin noticeboard (5 March 2020)Edit
Responses to hoaxes and trollingEdit
- Remarks on hoaxing and trolling by crosswiki-vandal Nsmutte, who started hoax edits in the guise of Yarddose (talk · contributions) and another newly created account at the Admin noticeboard. When I began to post notices indicating a slight familiarity with this particular pattern vandal, he began comments here which I have "commented out" from displaying, as contemptible pretensions, which the curious can examine in the edit pane if they wish. I have also copied the comments from the Admin noticeboard here for a continuity and conclusion of presentation.
I am personally inclined to block you here as quite obviously hoaxing and maliciously trolling from an account blocked at Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of a banned user there, but currently, not familiar with many of the situation's details will leave it to others perhaps more familiar with the situation to do so, if need be. I could definitely change my mind if the hoaxing and malicious trolling continues. ~06:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- In responses to your commented out hoaxing here, and hoax assertions elsewhere: I am familiar enough with your pissant pretensions, hoaxing and trolling to have contempt for them. I do not intend to accommodate them with any pretentions of credulousness in regard to your misleading assertions. Further attempts at hoaxing and trolling may result in a permanent block. ~
07:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yarddose has now been blocked for one day, awaiting comments or actions by other admins, stewards, or other officials regarding a permanent block. ~ 07:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior and subsequent activities at Admin noticeboard:
- For future reference to other admins, if a user shows up here, or pretty much anywhere else on any project complaining about religious user names and especially about Bonadea, they are definitely a sock of w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte and should just be blocked on sight. GMGtalk 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you an administrator on Wikiquote?Edit
- I have done an permanent block on Technoquat Quotation (talk · contributions) as a trolling and vandalism only account of a long term abuser of wiki accounts. ~ 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Noam Chomsky quoteEdit
Hi Kalki. I am hoping to add a quote to the Noam Chomsky page. However, I am unsure of where the quote first originated. I have outlined the problem on the relevant discussion page (seen here Talk:Noam Chomsky#Hope, freedom and change quote) and was wondering if you could please help at all? Many thanks in advance. --Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know the source of that quote, or when Chomsky first expressed such sentiments, but it reminds me of the much earlier assertion of H. G. Wells in Outline of History (1920):
- "Our poverty, our restraints, our infections and indigestions, our quarrels and misunderstandings, are all things controllable and removable by concerted human action, but we know as little how life would feel without them as some poor dirty ill-treated, fierce-souled creature born and bred amidst the cruel and dingy surroundings of a European back street can know what it is to bathe every day, always to be clad beautifully, to climb mountains for pleasure, to fly, to meet none but agreeable, well-mannered people, to conduct researches or make delightful things. Yet a time when all such good things will be for all men may be coming more nearly than we think. Each one who believes that brings the good time nearer; each heart that fails delays it."
- I believe that Wells also used a very similar expression in at least one other work, but I am not sure of that at this point, and it is likely that Chomsky has also expressed his similar ideas in more than one form, in various writings and interviews. About the best that can be done is to do google searches for specific portions of such expressions, in hopes of encountering such variants. ~ 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you're probably the best Wikiquote editor with over 140,000 edits, maintain QOTD daily and are a countless help to the community, I can't see why you're not a bureaucrat on Wikiquote already. Are you considering on doing an RFB sometime soon?
- I was once a bureaucrat and during that time I believe that there was a generally good development and increase in active admins here, but various confusions and contentions led me to desire to resign that post, and amidst some controversies to state the intention of doing that, quite displeased at many developments of improper assumptions and erroneous accusations which arose. Caught up in a very unfortunate clash of perceptions and wills I always recognized and conceded that some of my of my own actions could seem or be problematic to the perceptions and wills of others, but certainly never accepted the deficient assumptions or erroneous assertions that I myself ever did anything unethical or in any way intended to do anything improper, though amidst tens of thousands of edits, I actually had done a couple accidental edits which could seem such, and still, somewhat understandably amidst the initial confusions, failed to retain my adminship. Far less understandably, it took what I considered a ridiculously long and troublesome time after the subsidence of many erroneous assumptions and assertions for my adminship to be restored. In the time I was not an admin, despite continued activities and services here as the most active participant, I had to regularly suffer for many years the very increased abuses and sometimes very intense harassment of some of the most vile, despicable and contemptible vandals, trolls, and corrupted and corruptive individuals that I have encountered on this wiki. Even after it was restored, I have not had the time to resume many of the levels of attention and activity I once had here, and despite nearly daily activity of around an hour or so, I have done far less than I used to, even as an admin, and usually have far less time to do much that I wish to do here. I am still very glad and satisfied to merely be an admin here, and to serve this project as best I can, with the time I still have available, but I have no desire or intentions of ever being a bureaucrat again.
- As to today's QOTD presentation, though in recent months I have usually used only one image, and usually have had neither time nor inclination to use more, I have occasionally used two, and for many years I regularly put images to both sides of the QOTD, and considered that usually better visually balanced than just one, at least on desktop computers. I have now looked at the current page in various browsers on both my desktop computer and an iPhone, and see nothing exceptionally imbalanced in any of these, though the mobile options are almost always more problematic and imbalanced in ANY situation. ~ 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
It concerns one
- It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.
- Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.
- And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately.
- Plus, it falsely accuses me and Rupert loup of harassment and edit warring (which it started while we tried to stop), but it has provided no sufficient evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am responding here as I was pinged from this page by DawgDeputy. You might want to see this report at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy.
- DawgDeputy has created same blockshopping threads on 8 different Administrator's talk page, even though a report is already posted on WQ:AN.       
- Weird name has already been explained in detail--Pratap Pandit (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Not urgent but I will note that a fair propotion of the remaining Linter identifed concerns on
Relate to content you contributed in good faith.
Much appreciated if you could examine the pages listed there with a view to "tidying" up the formatting so that it's more compatible with the much stricter HTML/wikitest parsing rules now applied on Mediwiki platforms. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Friendly notice recommadationEdit
Id like to say and ask that i made a mistake but you dont have to be so cruel on me and say i make false information and id just did not what to do it my first time editing a page and why are you treating me so..... Angie williamz (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Simple question YES or NO
- Your first edit was an alteration of a quotation to diverge from its published version; your edit summary, which I deleted from normal view because of dubious or inappropriate information within it read in part: "I improved it and makes it have i even talk to her and she said i can edit so nobody must review it and if you have a problem contact me…"
- I commented on that edit summary with my remark: Adding FALSE information is NOT "improvement."
- This was hardly a cruel action, but simply an indication of facts of the matter, and I was giving you the benefit of a doubt that you had not deliberately intended to make a wrongful edit. Altering quotations is normally regarded as vandalism, and those who deliberately engage in that in defiance of policies for the integrity of the project usually very soon get blocked. These are just a few remarks on the matter, as I proceed to attend to other matters elsewhere. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)