User talk:Kalki/2020

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2020.

Top heading changes
For several years I had let a few notes initially intended as temporary ones stand at the head of my talk page, and that heading eventually read:



BUSY—BUSY—BUSY & BUSIER, AM I…
I have MUCH to do in coming days and nights — and I do NOT expect to have much time to spend here for at least another month, and perhaps several beyond that. On most days I do expect to be able to spare perhaps an hour or so here on QOTD activities — but it is not likely I will be able to very often spend much more than that for at least a month. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + substantial revision — MANY things are keeping me increasingly busy — and many unanticipated problems demand attention within the next month. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)  I have only VERY briefly checked in today to update the QOTD — and must be leaving again soon. I do not expect to have the time to engage in many discussions for at least the next few days, as I have many matters to attend to locally, and am not likely to spend even as much time on the internet as I recently have, which is far less than normal. I will probably attend to a few matters to the extent I can, in what brief periods I might find some free time to check in here, within the next week, but do not expect to have much more than a few minutes at a time to spend here on most days, though I might be able to spend perhaps an hour or so within the next day or so. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I had meant to do significant work here yesterday, but unexpectedly ended up traveling about more in my local region of New England than I had initially intended, doing only a last minute iPhone edit on a QOTD while still on the road, and finally did a full layout for this just a few minutes ago, from home — but now I must be leaving again, for at least a few hours. I don’t have time to examine much more at this time, will be leaving in a few minutes. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I was finishing up what I was thinking would be my last tasks of the day before heading home, and got a call, and will now be busy at least a few more hours. Managed to make it home in time to post QOTD, but am expecting someone to be picking me up within a few minutes. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I might do some final commenting and archiving of material on this page soon, within the next few days, but don’t have much time to attend to it right now. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I finally altered that heading on 2020·02·24 to what might serve as the top-most message on the page for quite some time to come:



I usually have only a sporadic presence here on most days
 Though I once regularly spent many hours of most days at least monitoring this site, I now quite often spend less than an hour a day doing so, at various random periods within most days. There may be a few periods this year where I will have the opportunity for extensive activities here for days at a time, but I am not actually counting on that occurring very often. I shall continue to usually check in at least daily, but Time shall reveal what opportunities times can provide. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) ALL abides always and all abide ALWAYS amidst ALL.

Please range block
The turkish IP LTA has returned, please block this range and yank talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We've got a hypocritical vandal on our hands.

 * It accuses me of ruining what it thought was updating the Toy Story page (when it was clearly vandalizing), which had been protected for a year before for good reason. But all of its edits were nothing but blatant vandalism and violation of copyright. I request this user be blocked for no less than a year (then again, its antagonistic behavior should be grounds for indefinite blocking) and all articles it vandalized, including all Toy Story articles, be protected for no less than the same period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocking it for one week is not going to stop it. One year should. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The anon IP twerps who vandalize wikis typically do not used a fixed IP, and thus blocking an IP for even a day is usually sufficient, though sometimes several week-long blocks of IPs might be done on persistent vandals using changing IPs. I generally block the IPs of the more obviously obnoxious twerps a week, though sometimes more, if I believe it might be in any way effective. Where IP ranges are repeatedly used they are often blocked for months or a year. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 03:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This one never changed IPs. Do observe its history of contributions, dating back to March of 2017. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked this IP for 3 months, and will note longer options and "range blocks" of longer duration might be used if further associated vandalism occurs. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Purpose
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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• NOTICE on formatting
For the convenience of readers and editors of this page, I have begun using "collapsable" options upon large sections below. I have also added some minor formatting tweaks of indents in many of the discussions with JessRek6 presented below — in the original postings she very often did not use them, easily making many of her comments seem contiguous to the one above them to casual scanners of the discussions. I wished to make all the actual changes of participants more visually apparent in the renderings on this page. I expect no major interest in examining them from most people, but I have also added a few "commented out" explications at a few points in these discussions (visible only in the editing panes after " '''

• February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question (20 February 2020)
Thank you for your efforts to maintain the Quote of the Day. In the early minutes of February 17 2020, you added a new suggestion, and used it, that had support from no one else, that no one else had an opportunity to review or vote for, rather than select from among the existing suggestions, several of which had various levels of support from multiple editors, is that right? JessRek6 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually, in selecting a QOTD I try to glance ahead at least a day or two at a time to have some idea of the options available, and to discern potential choices or the need for searching out more options. Even so, usually I do not make a final decision until just before the selection time, and sometimes without having even glanced at the suggestions page since the previous year, and sometimes with entirely new additions, most commonly involving regarding the recent death of notable people, or other major events.
 * I am not entirely sure of the time frames involved, but I do believe I had glanced ahead at least a day or two on the date mentioned and thought it likely I would probably use your suggestion for that date, and I have used several of your "anti-gun violence" suggestions for QOTD in recent months. I also kept in consideration another user’s suggestion of Hans Morgenthau’s "Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those."
 * I believe that after a day or two of occasional considerations, and mostly agreeing with the statement as a whole, some deficiencies in the opening lines of the statement by Emma González, whom I had previously used for a QOTD, had made that quote somewhat less favorable, and a few hours prior to making a selection I was probably leaning at least slightly toward the Morgenthau quote, and decided to search his page for clear sourcing of the statement, and came across a few others which I actually preferred more, and set them into a list to post as suggestions. I then became distracted by other matters and did not get back to the computer and this site until just prior to posting time, at which time I posted the one Morgenthau quote I had found most preferable, formatted it for QOTD, and then afterward posted the others I had found on his page as well. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did check the timing of events before reaching out to you: Some questions for you please: Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 
 * 8 minutes after midnight 00:08, 17 February 2020 you added a new suggestion and immediately gave it a ranking of 4.
 * 11 minutes later, with no other rankings, you selected your new suggestion as quote of the day. At that time, there were 5 suggestions with opinions from multiple editors, 3 of which with 6 votes total, and 1 with 5.
 * 1) Is quote of the day your thing, your preference, your final decision, or do you maintain it as a service for the community?
 * 2) As you know, the WikiQuote main page invites readers to make suggestions and to rank suggestions. What is the role of submitting suggestions and ranking suggestions in quote of the day, if any?
 * 3) What are the constraints on the subject matter of quote of the day as you understand them?
 * 4) What are the constraints on the re-use of quotes, on the same theme, or from the same source, or suggestions from the same editor, as you understand them?
 * 5) What kind of deficiencies may disqualify a suggested quote of the day, as you understand them?

I have attended to selections of the QOTD since 2003, and very nearly from the inception of this project in that year. Even those relatively few quotes selected before I began doing so were usually quotes I had initially entered into the project pages, when they were first beginning, but selected by another admin. Within a few years, with the help of others, I had set up the ranking system which exists so people could provide suggestions, and gauge and rank their opinions of the merits of the available suggestions, and throughout the years I have generally chosen from those with the highest average rankings, and usually, but not always, given a further boost of a 4 ranking to whatever quote I finally settle upon for a particular date from the lists of those available, when I do make my final decision. There have actually been very few complaints regarding my selections of quotes over the years, but among the very few of them have been those of sufficient fervor as to have inspired commentary from others that they were glad that they did not have the tasks of dealing with such contentions. They actually have been surprisingly and extremely rare though, and almost always by someone not pleased I did not select their particular suggestion or preference.

For practical purposes and limitations it is recommended that quotes have some relation to the date, and most typically this has relation to the birthdate of the author of the statement. There actually are NO absolute constraints on subject matter, themes, sources, or suggestions from any particular editors, but there actually has been generally low participation in the suggestions over the years. Though a few who have participated much have made many diverse additions on various subjects, many of the most prolific providers of suggestions have actually tended to have relatively narrow focus and interests. For many years one of the most persistent posters of suggestions tended to post quotes with very militaristic, pro-authoritarian and even villainous slants, and to usually rank very low those statements of more generally admirable sentiments which most people generally ranked high, but that did not dissuade me from approving and using many of his genuinely acceptable suggestions, while strongly and adamantly contending against, and ranking very low the most noxious of statements he suggested. During a period of his most intense activities, I openly appealed for greater participation in the ranking processes at the Village pump to prevent the "Quote of the day" from becoming the "Nazi quote of the day", because at the levels of participation that then existed many of his very skewed rankings on many pages would have occasionally left me little choice but to select some of his preferences against my own and MOST people's rational preferences. That period of crisis eventually passed, with greater diversity of participation, though some remnants of his more bizarre preferences still exist on many pages.

There is a ranking of "0" which I myself have seldom used, indicating an absolute rejection of the suitability of a statement for QOTD, which I am inclined to use only for extremely false or foul statements. That being said, there are actually no absolutes on the "deficiencies" or flaws or errors within statements which absolutely disqualify any of them entirely from consideration, and I do not suppose that any statement is required to be considered entirely perfect of flawless by any standards which could be devised. You seem to be exaggerating the significance of my statement regarding the growth of my gradual unease at using the quote you suggested for that day; as I stated it actually was the quote I initially thought I would most likely use for that day, but did perceive deficiencies in it which I weighed against it.

The quotation you suggested reads:

I can sympathize and agree with most of the assertions in the statement, but in considering it I also noted that the two initial sentences have not only some relatively minor and confusing grammatical deficiencies, but also have what could easily be perceived as a major falsehood in the blanket statement that "The people in the government who were voted into power are lying to us. And us kids seem to be the only ones who notice and our parents to call BS." I have no doubt that MANY people in government who were voted into power WERE lying, in various ways, at various levels, but must also coldly note that it is yet also a falsehood to make such a declaration AS IF it absolutely applied to ALL "the people in government who were voted into power." All that stated it did NOT "disqualify" it from my consideration, and I believe I retained some inclination to use it until the very last moments when I posted the one I selected. I had made a definite decision and posted it at 8 minutes after the UT date change. It then took me eleven minutes to seek an image, with a few options in mind, and to format the layout for the quote. I then had other things to attend to, and a few hours later I got back to matters here and posted the other quotes I had also found to be noteworthy on the the Morgenthau page.

Your statement that at the time I made the selection "there were 5 suggestions with opinions from multiple editors, 3 of which with 6 votes total, and 1 with 5" is rather confusing: For maximum versatility and consideration of many factors, I tend to consider the average of the rankings of the individual quotes, and certainly do not go by how many total rankings they might have received, and to be clear, there were at the time of my final decision and posting of the Morgenthau quote, 8 other suggestions, 5 with 2 clear rankings, and NONE with more than that, and where you perceive that one selection had "5 rankings" I have no idea — there were at that time 3 other suggestions with only ONE clear ranking. In any event, by the time of selection, I had rejected some of my initial impulses to use your suggestion, and as I was somewhat late at getting back to the computer I was considering simply using the suggestion of which had earlier prompted me to look at the Morgenthau page, but decided on using what I honestly considered a somewhat better quote of Morgenthau. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Please allow me to clarify the situation regarding the community consensus on the QOTD for 2020-02-17, as of the first minutes of that morning. Here are all the suggestions of which two or more collegues expressed opinions:
 * Morgenthau ("Political power is a psychological relation..."; not the quote you ultimately selected): 3+3=6
 * Foote: 3+3=6
 * Bruno: 3+3=6
 * Soter: 4+1=5
 * VOA: 3+1=4
 * González: 4+2=6
 * Six suggestions were available, all of which had support of two or more editors; yet you selected a quote with support from just one editor (yourself). Five suggestions were available that had a higher sum of rankings than the one you chose. Applying a standard of most editors in favor, or highest total ranking, one of several suggestions would have been selected. I understand Wiki culture is not voting, yet we all have a responsibility to fairly recognize consensus, even when we disagree with it.


 * Do I understand you consider the rankings as unreliable indicators of community consensus?


 * "Average ranking breaks down as a criterion if you allow yourself to consider the average ranking of a quote with only one ranking. When a quote has just one ranking, and it is a 4, no other quote can possibly achieve a higher average ranking. If average ranking were used as the criterion, independent of the number of editors expressing support, then for example a quote with just one ranking of 4 ("average ranking" 4?) will always be selected over another quote with 6 editors expressing support, 4-4-4-3-3-3 ("average ranking" 3.5). When a quote is a suggestion from yourself, and is only minutes old, so that there is no opportunity for community input, and that quote has just one ranking, and that one ranking is from yourself, and that one ranking is a 4, and you select it, the appearance of community process suffers, and it is not surprising participation lags. When editors take the time to make suggestions, and rank suggestions, and later learn that one editor can select a quote no one else suggested or ranked, does it foster participation or discourage participation?


 * Do I understand you to confirm, yes, you do consider yourself to hold the role of the final decision maker on the QOTD? If so, should we document this arrangement? Other editors might take the time to make suggestions, and read and rank suggestions, under the false impression that the submission and ranking process has a role in which quote might be selected.


 * González at the time of the quote was a secondary school student, what we call a high school student. I feel she can be forgiven a less-than-High English grammatical construction and some use of hyperbole. Her intention was clear. No one reading it would reasonably take it as a deliberate mis-statement of fact, a categorical "All elected officials lie." I believe other quotes which employ hyperbole have been used in the past.


 * To clarify, I am not in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day", and further I don't think it is useful to bring that into this discussion.


 * Thank you again for your service to the WikiQuote community and to the QOTD feature in particular. JessRek6 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)



I definitely never implied in ANY way that you were a person in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day" — and consider any attempt to imply that I actually did as a very petty polemic. You had inquired increasingly derisively as to my rationales and processes in selecting quotes of the day — and I simply mentioned some of my experiences in past years in dealing with some of the ways various narrow-interest editors have and can skew results and ratings, and gave some indications of some of the ways I have responded to some of these, mentioning some aspects of one of the most prominent of the problem editors.

You derisively asked "Do I understand you consider the rankings as unreliable indicators of community consensus?" You might possibly MISUNDERSTAND any number of things I have stated and state, but I actually consider the rankings the primary means by which I can and do gauge the consensus, but your own stated tallyings and calculations DEFINITELY seem to be either absurdly confusing or deliberately IGNORING the ACTUAL mathematical processes involved in any rationally valid use of the ranking system used, and imply that consensus should be measured simply by some cumulative addition of the rankings posted for each quote rather than the more rationally accurate AVERAGING of the rankings posted.

EACH and EVERY suggestion page clearly presents these OPTIONS for ranking quotes:


 * Ranking system:
 * 4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)
 * 3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.
 * 2 : Good - some desire to see it used.
 * 1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.
 * 0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

I believe it has always been quite clearly evident to most people that anything approaching an actually fair processing of the rankings above innately involve an averaging of any rankings for any quote — and a quote with a ranking of 4 and 1 would thus have a resultant ranking of "2.5", and NOT some kind of "cumulative total" of "5" — such an absurdly irrational system as involves a simple ADDITIVE cumulative count would permit a 3 people to rank something "1", as barely acceptable, and have any quotes they alone rank 3 and "very good" have no greater consideration than that one — or conceivably even have a dozen people rank something "0" and UNACCEPTABLE as a Quote of the day, and yet have a single 4 ranking of it outweigh ALL such rankings if no other quote available actually got so much as a cumulative 4. Such extremes might actually never occur, but EVERY calculation could actually be VERY skewed AWAY from genuine consensus.

After I had typed in many of the above observations, I noted that you added a statement implying "6 editors expressing support, 4-4-4-3-3-3" could be outweighed by my single vote of a 4, and certainly that is also conceivable, but it also certainly has never happened. I can even concede it conceivably could occur if a famous personage died and a quote regarding his demise became appropriate for a date where there were already very highly ranked quotes — but in all the years of my editing here any quote with so much as two 4's or three 3s has usually been among my top considerations, and it has actually been very rare to get so much as three "4"s for any statement — and if not the product of obvious sock puppets, multiple rankings of 4 without contrary rankings of "0" — such as actually has occurred regarding some quotes of the pro-authoritarian editor I mentioned earlier, are always given prominent consideration, and usually have eventually been used.

I make no denial that averaging process innately does permit me to have a somewhat greater sway in deciding the final selections than any average editor, and I do not believe that this is extraordinarily unjust or unfair, as for years I have daily considered the sometimes wide varieties of options posted for any dates, and am certainly NOT committed to advocating for any particular group or causes to the exclusion of any other, though like any human being I have my own affinities and antipathies to various ranges of sentiments or inclinations. '''The "cumulative tally" process you seem to be either assuming or advocating as appropriate is one I find innately absurd and irrational — and believe that MOST people can plainly discern that it would ALWAYS permit and IMPEL absurdly skewed results entirely out of ranges of ALL the norms of opinions and actual consensus regarding the quotes.

I also make no denial that from the first months of this project I actually have had the role of the final decision maker on the QOTD, and probably have retained that role primarily because most others regularly involved here definitely did NOT wish to become caught up with the burdens and hassles sometimes involved in such decisions, and if you are actually advocating so absurdly irrational a system as insists there should be nothing other than a "cumulative tally" of rankings which actually disregards and destroys any rational reckoning of genuine consensus, rather than the more rational and fair AVERAGING of rankings aimed at ARRIVING at clear notions of consensus, I believe many people can plainly see in that fact that there are quite irrational lengths people can and will go to to favor their particular agenda or inclinations to the disregard to all other rational considerations.

I will close in actually addressing what I believe to be most of your above points, by agreeing that González can CERTAINLY "be forgiven a less-than-High English grammatical construction and some use of hyperbole" — but such a use is something I believe is quite also quite forgivable and acceptable to take into consideration AGAINST such particular quotes in comparing them with others. I also believe that you can be forgiven for your apparent resentment that I did not select your suggestion. '''As I have indicated I was mostly inclined to use it, for at least a day or two, and all your arguments against my processes of consideration have NOT led me to conclude that it is in any way not eventually acceptable, and though I might suggest possibly dropping the first problematic line of it, I probably would not actually insist even on that. The quote simply was NOT the one which I preferred to use for this year on that date, and I can anticipate perhaps using it at some point in the future. I make no commitments to that, though I do actually presently believe it likely. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, and thank you once again for your service to the WikiQuote community on the QOTD.


 * I recognize your extraordinary commitment to this service. I am convinced you are sincerely trying to do what is best. However, this situation, where one editor asserts that their personal preference is the deciding factor, is in my experience unprecedented anywhere in the broader Wiki community. I am not advocating any particular scheme, other than to suggest that the expressed opinions of multiple editors should be considered with more weight that any individual editor. I might have thought we could compare the daily chore of reviewing previous suggestions to the chore of closing any discussion as an uninvolved editor; normally, we would expect such a close to proceed from a careful consideration of the previous discussion, not simply vote counting, but we would not expect the close to side with a resolution that was not entertained by any of the participants. You understand how it seems that your insistence that you are free to add a new suggestion at the last minute, rank it 4, and that average ranking is the way to go, means that in practice you are always free to use whatever quote you want any day you want.


 * Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will state again that for many reasons I do believe it is actually important to ALWAYS have an option for last minute additions and selections, by whoever now or in the future selects the QOTD — and will state that the most common occurrences of such incidents have always been simply quotes added in regard to the recent deaths of notable people. You state that the use of averaging, and the options of last minute additions means "in practice you are always free to use whatever quote you want any day you want" — but in all the years since 2003 it has certainly has NOT been my practice to disregard the clear preferences of most others, but to nearly always choose from the arrays of the highest ranked suggestions available. As I have always been the most actively engaged in the not only the selection but suggestion processes, on MOST pages MOST of the suggestions are actually those I have made over the years — but I always genuinely seek to use what I believe to be the best quotes available for a particular day, by whoever suggests them, and USUALLY those used are those among the most generally preferred as measured by the average rankings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

•• Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard discussions (24 February 2020)

 * For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Administrators' noticeboard AFTER most of the above discussion.


 * Request semiprotect Template:QOTD Ranking

Please semi-protect Template:QOTD Ranking (currently it is protected). I would like to add a few sentences encouraging participation in ranking QOTD suggestions and setting expectations regarding the role of the ranking in the QOTD selection process. Thank you! JessRek6 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You could just add the text here an admin will post it in if it seems like a good edit. Does that work? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I am a registered editor in good standing. I would prefer to edit boldly, and would prefer not to discuss content here on a noticeboard. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. As Kalki has already been pinged as is the one who first protected it, I'll at least give him some time to respond as a courtesy. If he hasn't done anything in a couple of days (he usually edits here every day), then ping me and I'll reduce protection. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It is transcluded on around 250 pages, but they're all internal page and not public-facing. No history of vandalism, not that anyone had a chance, since it was only unprotected for six minutes. Thoughts?   G M G  talk  18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A request to suddenly open this template to general editing because of expression of a will and personal preference "not to discuss content here on a noticeboard" by someone who in the last few days has been repeatedly derisive and apparently resentful of my judgement in not choosing her suggestion and preference for the QOTD on the 17th of this month is not indicative of a request I believe to be entirely reasonable or justified.
 * I believe any reasonably warranted changes to be made to that template can be made by admins after discussions of suggestions either here or on the talk page for that template. The template is a simple summary of the QOTD ranking process which is presented on each and every QOTD suggestion page, and I see no need to unprotect it and open it to sudden changes by general editors.
 * I can concede some very slight additions might perhaps be appropriate. Prior the the last few days, I had assumed that the act of assessing the relative rankings of quotes by averaging out the available rankings of each quote would be a sufficiently familiar and obvious process to most people as to not require explication, but can accept that a more explicit clarification of the use of that process on the template page, while I don’t believe it actually necessary might conceivably be helpful to some. 'More extensive elaborations on some of the conceivably more extravagant, very rarely or never'' actually used possibilities and potentials innate in assessing quotes through the averaging processes, or perhaps even personal opinions on some of these potentials, would probably not be helpful additions on a summary template on each suggestion page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We agree some modest additions to the template to set the expectations of participating editors regarding the selection process might help avoid misunderstandings going forward. Please reduce the protection to semi, and then let us collaborate in good faith to document the existing process, as accurately and fairly and as concisely as possible, with no elaborations or enhancements. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I started to comply with this request, but I actually think that Kalki's request for further elaboration of what might be changed is a valid one. Once any potential changes are discussed and agreed, they can be made. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am specifically proposing that interested parties collaborate on a modest addition to the template to summarize the existing selection process. I am not proposing any new policy or guideline or process or change to any policy or guideline or process. Further elaboration is more appropriate at the template discussion page as part of a collaborative editing effort. I am an editor in good standing and I respectfully request the privilege due any editor in good standing of bold editing. Kalki is an admin, I am not, and this is an issue of content, so as an expression of good faith I would like all interested parties to participate as editors. The exposure is extremely limited; changes to the template will only be visible to those brave few who make QOTD suggestions or who read and rank others' QOTD suggestions. I will voluntarily limit myself to one template edit per day, in order to accommodate my colleague's editing style. I will commit to BRD including of course talk page discussion; I am not a vandal, please do not fear an edit war. JessRek6 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Your points seem valid to me. I will reduce the protection to allow the requested collaboration - please continue to discuss proposed changes before making them. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 I actually definitely disagree with the reduction of protection of the template.

I believe that this editor's responses can easily seem to have something of the character of the legendary Greek armies before Troy suddenly declaring "please open your gates" so we can eventually better collaborate after you accept our beautiful gift of a wooden horse. The results here could certainly not be so disastrous as that of the legendary tales, but I have the impression it is very likely they would not be much more welcome to anyone of genuine good faith and good sense. Anticipating changes of a basic instructional template "limited to" one per day is something that definitely seems extreme, and extremely contentious.

The existing templates read very simply:


 * Ranking system:
 * 4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)
 * 3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.
 * 2 : Good - some desire to see it used.
 * 1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.
 * 0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

In reviewing the above, I believe that perhaps the statement regarding the "4" ranking could be entirely in bold text to denote the definitely imperative nature of it, in regard to any other options considered, thus reading: "Excellent - should definitely be used."

In addition to the simple straightforward presentation of the ranking options a very brief summation of the selection process could also be added, something along the lines of:


 * An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day.

OR, at most, a somewhat more extensive elaboration, perhaps reading:


 * An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

The available options for potentially sudden additions outranking previous options in considerations seems to be what this editor most objects to — but I believe that such should ALWAYS remain an option available to whomever makes the final selections for QOTD, now and in the future, so as to be ALWAYS be able to be swiftly responsive to any major contemporary developments, such as notable deaths or disasters, and also as a potential fail-safe measure against "invasive troll work" which are conceivably very plausible actions on this and many other sites in the present era of social media contentions and clandestine political subterfuge. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Please join the discussion at Template talk:QOTD Ranking. JessRek6 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Request for FULL protection being restored on Template:QOTD Ranking and established on Quote of the day presentation page
 * I clearly objected to removing the protections, and I believe sufficient and probably helpful alterations have now been made to this template, and that the FULL protection of it should NOW be RESTORED. Other activities of the person requesting the lessening of the protection leave me very wary of genuine good faith intentions in regard to many matters. I put up a single day block to the Wikiquote:Quote of the day page, after she, without ANY prior discussion, posted AS IF they were official summaries of official policies and procedures "Maintenance instructions" which were somewhat redundant with presentations already available on that page, though I could conceive of incorporating some of these into the prior expositions in a more simple way, and "Deployment instructions" which I very PROMPTLY removed, as ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE which implied it to be official policy and procedure for ANY editor to make FINAL selections for the QOTD and seek to POST them as such. She seems to presently be very intent on promoting such a practice as a policy. I believe most admins can appreciate that such IRRATIONAL assertions are more of an invitation to TROLLING and even more extensive vandalism activities than any actual viable procedures here. Having technically been accused of simply being involved in a "content dispute" by TWICE removing such improper material and open invitations to trolls from the page, I do not wish to further protect the pages myself, but request that the Quote of the day also be FULLY protected, perhaps permanently at this point, from what I believe to be a strong possibility of further potentially very disruptive and BAD FAITH edits. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I made the above request after she posted the "Deployment instructions" on the Quote of the Day talk page after I protected the main page from such insertions. I did NOT remove these from that page, as not so inappropriate a placement — but I responded to her assertions that her rather extreme proposals should simply be posted and accepted as "official policy" here. I obviously quite strongly disagree. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * For the convenience of anyone wishing to examine many of the issues involved in this dispute in a more unified form, I have compiled most recent discussions involving myself and into a few subsections on my talk page. (I have recently completed a long delayed archiving of that page, so it is not so oppressively extensive as it was just a few days ago, and only these discussions, and one other I have not yet attended to remain in the talk sections). ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity and ease of navigation through what have been gradually growing discussions of recent days I have left the discussions which began on my talk page in white, the subsequent discussions here tinted blue, those on the Template talk:QOTD Ranking tinted green, and those on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day tinted red. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I'm certainly not reading through this wall of text. But I still don't see where the disruption is that requires protection. There was a single edit by a non-administrator during the unprotected period, half of which is still there. Moreover, something like this is difficult to interpret as anything other than an extended personal attack.  G M G  talk  18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The "wall of text" had some formatting errors which were corrected with subsequent edits, but it was an extensive response to what I believe were clearly false claims and characterizations of circumstances which I believed had to be specifically and extensively addressed. In the response you seem to object to more strongly I myself was responding to what I truly believe to be the quite evident distortions, dishonesties, false assumptions and false assertions which were evident in many recent posts, and in the most recent acts of attempting to post certain procedures AS IF they were accepted and established policies when they certainly were NOT, and I believe that they were actually nothing less than entirely new innovations in trolling and invitations to trolling. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are going to repeatedly accuse someone of trolling, disruption, arrogant and asinine vandalism, bad faith exposures, misleading distortions, outright lies, disingenuousness and dishonesty, then you better come bearing some pretty convincing diffs.  G M G  talk  19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I certainly examine them regularly, I usually do not confine my arguments or assessments to presenting or comparing "diffs" which can themselves often be chosen to present very select and narrow windows on circumstances. In consideration of anyone who is inclined to examine many of the stages of the assertions and contentions which have developed in the current disputes, I have presently cleared my talk page of nearly all other material, and it now consists primarily of an extensive presentation of discussions on the pages in which these current disputes have developed, in color coded subsections for ease of perusal. I certainly am not in any way inclined to advocate a neglect or disregard of this editor's valid concerns or assertions because of present disputes with her, and I believe I have accommodated some of them, and am willing to accommodate more, but I do believe that major project pages should not be open to her sudden alteration, to post such sudden innovations as "Deployment instructions" AS IF they were approved and accepted procedures here, in total disregard, defiance and denigration of those which actually exist. I have indicated in some of my previous responses specific ways in which I genuinely believe many of her assertions have been misleading or simply false, whether by mistake or by design, and to my discernment even many true assertions seem to have been mixed or tinged with false ones or appeals to false assumptions in deliberately deceptive ways, but I am well aware that this is always something difficult to actually prove. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read through the discussion (with the exception of the 4,200 word wall of text), and their comments seem cordial and fairly within reason (not to mention comparatively concise). Your responses do not. If your evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs, then stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, disruption, and trolling, "I don't fancy diffs" does not constitute evidence.  G M G  talk  20:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We are all somewhat limited by our own beliefs, but I believe that you are asserting as your apparent belief that my "evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs" — but if you actually examined the "4,200 word wall of text" where I detail some of the errors, distortions and deceptions which I assert were evident in the comments and "audit" which prompted that very extensive and detailed rebuttal, I believe that such an assertion would not be rationally maintained. I actually have NOT been inclined to accuse her of direct and deliberate vandalism, though I confess that was something I have been inclined to suspect at times, but I definitely believe some of her postings were innately promotional of greater opportunities for vandals and trolls, and some of my statements asserting that could be read ambiguously. I am well aware very skilled trolls and vandals do not need such information, but many more casual and incidental trolls could begin to make use of it when posted to prominent pages. I am NOT inclined to view her or ANY person as an innately "bad person" but I do definitely perceive that there are evident inclinations, intentions and activities I consider it proper to object to and oppose, and I have simply done so. I have no problem accommodating what I perceive to be reasonable suggestions and requests from her or anyone. I will probably not have time today to do much work on merging some of the comments she posted to a project page which I did not believe it necessary to remove, with such information as was already there, but I might get around to that tomorrow, or at least within a few days, and simultaneously refine and update some long obsolete presentations on the page, whenever I do get around to it. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways." (diff).  G M G  talk  20:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was attending to other matters for a while, and just saw your posting. The statement you quote is bluntly honest, and I was expressing and asserting a bit of anger and genuine and increasing contempt for what I perceived to be qualities which were evident in actions and expressions I was immediately and directly responding to. Even so, I am extremely aware that such qualities as are immediately evident in circumstances are NOT the only ones which exist in ANYONE, even the people who are most habitually dishonest, deceitful or conniving, but to the extent I discern such qualities to be becoming increasingly evident or persistent in any situation or set of actions, I am sometimes very inclined to make note of that in various overt or subtle ways. I am very well aware all people and all circumstances are complex, and am NOT prone to seek to characterize people as "ONLY" manifesting ANY qualities which might be immediately apparent — I consider such inclinations themselves quite foolish, and all too common. While I was attending to other matters I actually had some thoughts pertinent to some matters here, but in assessing my own limited capacities to explicate and indicate many of them in ways that might be easily understandable or appreciated, I will simply decline to complicate matters further, other than to state they inclined me to amusement and tolerance and certainly not to bitterness or resentment. I do have to attend to other matters more extensively now, so I expect my presence here today to become even more sporadic. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is not a suggestion; it is a requirement. You are expected to work collaboratively with others. Being a long-term user or an administrator does not exempt you from this requirement, neither does it exempt you from being blocked for making personal attacks or casting aspersions without providing evidence. Being a long-term user and administrator requires that you should understand and model this above and beyond the average user. I trust you will take this mandate seriously going forward.  G M G  talk  22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As you stated you were not inclined to examine the "wall of text" which I assert is in many ways actually a wall of EVIDENCE, such as you imply I do not provide, presented in response to her derisive assertions and claims regarding an "audit" of a week of my selection processes, in which I refute her specific allegations and also tabulated up circumstances and actions regarding many years of edits in February, I have extracted just a few of the more clearly expository statements which most directly refute some of her explicit accusations against me in her putative "audit". I will also note that one general aspect of her "audit" and other comments which can be summarized as deceptive is continually remarking on ALL the rankings of quotes as "support" for them, when quite often this is quite CONTRARY to facts, and the rankings often do NOT actually indicate positive support, and sometimes not even acceptance but actual REJECTION, and that is actually the case in some of the incidents she remarks upon, and this is certainly a significant form of falsehood to note. In refuting her statements I confess I also clearly occasionally used a few "harsh" words like "deceitful", "deceitfulness" and even "hypocrisy" while providing evidence in response to her harsh accusations — which most people are aware can be made without using harsh words at all. I will confess I could be easily considered guilty of extreme idiocy in that particular skill.
 * To try to keep things relatively brief I provide simply extracts and NOT the complete information regarding THREE of the dates "audited" focusing only on parts where I was responding directly to several of her accusations against me, where against her allegations and innuendos I definitely establish that there was no impropriety on my part in making these selections. I am aware the details of these assertions are somewhat tedious, and probably not easily understood by all, but they definitely refute her assertions.
 * February 10 : I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:


 * I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.
 * February 11 : "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.
 * February 14 : This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.
 * In closing, I also wish to note that some of my harshest comments were responses to what I considered to be improper actions that had taken place only moments before my comments, and that at no point did I seek to unjustly constrain her from making suggestions, comments, or even further denigration of my integrity. I simply at one point took action to prevent further posting of what I considered improper and deceptive material to a significant project page. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 05:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

•• Template talk:QOTD Ranking discussions (25 February 2020)

 * For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Template talk:QOTD Ranking after much of the above discussion.


 * Brief summary of selection process

Proposed addition to the template to offer participants a brief overview of the selection process, and to set expectations regarding the weight of making suggestions or ranking suggestions:

''The Quote of the Day (QOTD) is the most prominent feature of the WikiQuote Main Page. Thank you for submitting, reviewing, and ranking suggestions!''

As with many processes on Wiki projects, the selection of QOTD is not simply a matter of vote counting. The average ranking is the primary factor in the selection; other considerations in the selection, independent of the expressed rankings of any number of editors, include: an assessment of the grammatical correctness of the suggestion, agreement with the sentiment or idea expressed by the suggestion, whether the statement made by the suggestion is considered true or may be read as false or partially false or hyperbolic, connection to this date in history such as the birthday or anniversary of death of the speaker of the quote, how often or how recently suggestions from the same speaker or from the same editor have been used, and personal preference.

Thus, a suggestion with a lower average ranking than others, or with fewer editors expressing supportive rankings, may be selected.

The selection of the QOTD is not considered closing a discussion, and the editor making the selection is not required to impartially assess consensus or to be an uninvolved; they may make suggestions, rank suggestions, select one of their own suggestions, or select any quotation of their choice.

The selection of QOTD is currently made by User:Kalki, typically around 00:00 UTC daily.

Thank you for participating!

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Edited for length and clarity JessRek6 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)



I was just about to leave, having already made a QOTD selection for today, and perhaps not having time to get back for further editing anytime soon, but noticed your additions here, and am delaying slightly. All in all your suggestions are more moderate than I feared they might be, but also a bit more extensive than I believe is actually necessary. At most I would prefer to extend them to such a layout as I mentioned earlier on the Admin noticeboard after the protection levels were reduced here. It would display somewhat in this form:


 * Ranking system:
 * 4 : Excellent – should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)
 * 3 : Very Good – strong desire to see it used.
 * 2 : Good – some desire to see it used.
 * 1 : Acceptable – but with no particular desire to see it used.
 * 0 : Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.


 * An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

I could see possible addition of some of your above suggestions as well, among the above assertions, but I generally would prefer to keep the instructions as short and simple as possible. Possibly an alternate coloration to the section in a pale yellow or blue might also be used, to make it stand out a bit more on the page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" This wording inadequately describes the many various conditions under which the selection is not "among" the top ranked, which I think is sort of the point here, to be fair to participants to understand before investing time and energy in order to prevent misunderstandings going forward.
 * "on the date prior to their use" Let us collaborate to document the existing process; this wording makes it seem like our community has 24 hours advanced notice of the selection, which it does not.
 * "usually in regard to special events" Again, let us reflect the existing process; it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events. JessRek6 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was literally about to leave, and am currently in my outdoors clothing, but am again delaying slightly.
 * I believe it IS the case that the final selection is "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" — but on many and perhaps most pages the rankings tend to be rather FLAT, making shifts in rankings or additions of rankings often very significant as alterations. On the pages with prominent extremes the least favored quotes are simply not selected, and choices ARE usually made from among the most favored.
 * I can accept a dropping of "on the date prior to their use" from my summary as not actually necessary, but certainly did not intend to use it in deceptive way, and in the "existing process" I believe it IS actually usually the case.
 * You finally assert that "it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events" — and I reject that claim entirely. Again I will state that MOST pages have SEVERAL or even MANY quotes in ties for "highest ranked" — and thus alteration of a rank on ANY of these can be decisive — but that does NOT make the assertion false that the final decisions are from among the highest ranked — and certainly does NOT make true the assertion or implication that most late additions are not actually related to recent events — I assert they USUALLY are.
 * I have summarized a few objections to your above assertions, and now actually do have to get going. I do not intend to remain here more than a few minutes, at present, but presently believe I will probably be back within a couple of hours or so. So it goes. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * As we discussed previously on your talk page, since you focus on average ranking, and since no average will ever exceed 4, and the way you reserve the right to involve yourself and make a fresh suggestion at selection time and rank it a 4, means that in practice, yes, I agree, the quote you select will always be "among" the top ranked, and so you effectively always reserve the right to yourself to literally select any quote you prefer on any given day. I believe in fairness to participants we need to be as explicit as possible about this aspect of the current process. JessRek6 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An audit of one recent week:
 * 2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself.
 * 2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * 2/12 - On Lincoln's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from other editors.
 * 2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself.
 * 2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * 2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.


 * 2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * To characterize this process as "almost always" or "usually" or "except on special occasions" selecting from "among the top ranked" would be misleading to participants. JessRek6 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I had several more things to attend to than I was initially considering earlier, and this remains the case, but I will definitely make a response to these assertions within the coming day or so.
 * I will state that I do believe you definitely seem to be extremely intent on mischaracterizing my actions in a very skewed and hostile manner, and with all manner of deficiencies or clear errors in assertions about the facts, in declaring your assessments. In response I will assess some of your criticisms and assessments of these pages and actions in regard to them, but I know it will take some time to meticulously expose what I believe to be some of the deficiencies and errors of your assertions, and I will likely expand the scope of the examinations extensively. There are perhaps some facts which you do accurately state, but there are more extensive facts you are clearly ignoring, and some assessments which I believe to be extremely incorrect. I do not plan to begin doing this immediately, as for at least a few hours there will be many other matters I will be attending to, and it is very possible that I might not post anything further on this matter till sometime tomorrow evening. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a noticeboard, it is a talk page, you need not defend the selection process here or anywhere else. After all, no one is complaining. My point in examining one week was to look together at what really happens, in service of suggesting that in the text we add we avoid constructions such as "almost always" or "usually" or "occasionally" that characterize how often a consideration enters into the selection decision. I am heartened that you view the above proposed text as moderate and an improvement. Based on your comments, I have edited it for length. I hope that there is some area of agreement. May I propose that the content, indicated above in italics, mainly the greeting and salutation, the invitations to participate, and some simple statements of basic facts, is non-controversial, and may be added to the template as we continue to collaborate on a concise summary of the considerations that enter into the selection decision? JessRek6 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extensive responses to misleading assertions
I believe I quite definitely need to defend the selection processes here, and I believe that you have definitely been implicitly or explicitly complaining in your present and recent statements. As I have already indicated I believe many of your assertions are VERY misleading, in some cases perhaps deliberately deceitful, and your final comments earlier that what I believe to be my quite honest and accurate assertions regarding matters "would be misleading to participants" to be among the most misleading of your own statements, and prompted me to attempt to expose how erroneous and FALSE I believe many of your assertions have been. In rebuking and refuting what I consider the very warped, skewed, unjustly derisive and simply FALSE assertions you have provided above I will make a few very relevant observations. You seem very skilled at using polite and considerate language in conjunction with some of your VERY impolite and inconsiderate actions and innuendos, and after you twice posted info which I believe far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than any good faith editors I will adapt the Emma González statement which you had suggested and I happened to decide against using as QOTD on the 17th: I call BS.

On your User page you post 6 incidents of having made QOTD suggestions, and have checked off fully half of these as quotes which I had actually selected for QOTD:
 * QOTD suggestions
 * February 17 - Emma González in Fort Lauderdale (2018)
 * ✅ March 24 - Emma González at March for Our Lives in Washington D. C. on March 24, 2018
 * June 12 - Obama after Orlando (2016)
 * July 20 - Obama after Aurora (2012)
 * ✅ November 5 - James Fallows in The Atlantic after the Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)
 * ✅ December 14 - Obama on Sandy Hook

You seem to have become irate regarding my assessments and decisions after I did not provide you the opportunity to check off a 4th on your very acceptable but very targeted agenda on the 17th. In relation to this you have cast aspersions on my judgement and procedures and long years of work on this project, and prompted me to spend a substantial amount of time and effort in recent days, between other tasks and duties, in beginning to counter what seems to me to be some of your perhaps casual but intense disparagement of my moral integrity and some of the conscientious and simply practical processes I have developed over the years, dealing with a preparations against a wide range of actual as well as potential problems.

I have stated that in doing daily work here in providing QOTD suggestions and selections for the many years since 2003, I have actually not only done MOST of the work of making selections, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, but also the work of seeking and providing MOST of the suggestions on MOST pages, and nearly all of them on some, and having already used what few suggestions others have provided on some pages, currently the ONLY suggestions remaining available on some are entirely those I have provided. This is the actually the case on the suggestion page for the upcoming QOTD for February 27, where other than the 23 suggestions I have posted, 13 of them already chosen, ONLY 3 other suggestions by ANYONE ELSE have been provided AT ALL, in ALL of the years in which it has been available, 2 of them very welcomed and already used additions by a broadly discerning contributor of many quotes to many pages, and one of them, actually the first QOTD for that date, was one simply posted by an anon IP in 2004, prior to any formalities at all having yet developed in the selection processes. I believe that the ACTUAL STATE about THIS PAGE and MANY others, and the actual quality and quantity of my contributions relative to those provided by others should definitely be taken into account and not a simplistic tally that is apparently aimed at implying or misleading others to assume that that I tend to choose primarily my own quotes AS IF that were simply indicative of an "unfair bias" or a devious procedure on my part — rather than very often a definite consequence of a relative paucity of well-ranked or even existing alternatives on MANY pages.

In seeking out the "last moment changes" which have occurred because of sudden events so far this year, I found that there have thus far been only 3. I scanned the January 2020 summary page, and the first was in regard to the death of Kobe Bryant, posted as QOTD of the 27th of January. I am not actually an avid fan of any spectator sports, but even I was familiar with many of the admirable qualities and accomplishments of Bryant, and I wept many times on that day at the circumstances of his death, and that of his daughter and their companions in that helicopter crash, and have wept many times since in many of the tributes which have been given by others regarding his life. On hearing of his death I immediately cast all other considerations aside, and sought out a quote of him to use for the upcoming QOTD. There were at that point NONE actually available upon his page, only quotes about him, and in searching the internet I found several admirable statements attributed to him, but could not sufficiently source them, but finally came across a very good one with a reliable source, and used it:

Reviewing the summary page for February 2020 I observed that the next "last moment change" after the death of Bryant had not been in regard to a death, but of a rarer event in the prominently historical statement made by Mitt Romney on his decision to vote in favor of convicting Donald Trump on one of the impeachment charges against him. I believe that only after using that for the 6th of February I learned of the death of Kirk Douglas, and the next day once again cast aside other considerations and used a quote of Douglas in regard of his death.
 * Correction : there were actually 4 such "last moment changes" because of sudden events — I had very clearly remembered the death of both Bryant and Douglas altering my procedures, and had been scanning for Bryant's QOTD, but actually in my quick scanning of the pages missed the earlier QOTD of Jim Lehrer just a few days before, on January 24th, after his recent death, when I posted:
 * Correction : there were actually 4 such "last moment changes" because of sudden events — I had very clearly remembered the death of both Bryant and Douglas altering my procedures, and had been scanning for Bryant's QOTD, but actually in my quick scanning of the pages missed the earlier QOTD of Jim Lehrer just a few days before, on January 24th, after his recent death, when I posted:

I start my larger exposition of activities and assessments with providing what I believe to be a broader, deeper and more accurate sweep of things with a more extensive and meticulous INDICATION of actual circumstances, starting with the very beginning of this month's edit's, and facts about the various options available, the relative rankings of available prospects, and perhaps sometimes some aspects of the considerations I have made in choosing one quote from among others, or seeking out further options beyond those initially available. I will also provide indications of the tallies of quotes from PREVIOUS years in relation to EACH of those dates, so that a far more extensive range of facts and considerations about them can come into play to anyone taking any note of our contending assertions about matters.

For many years in working the suggestion pages, I tended to rank nearly ALL the quotes which were provided by anyone, and many other participants did that also, but as I perceived fewer and fewer people actually showing any inclination to do that, or rank others than their own, and some acts of extremely skewing all the tallies to favor their own suggestions or preferences, I myself began to more seldom rank the suggestions of others in bulk, and now, for various reasons of time and circumstances, probably quite often provide many of them a ranking only when I actually select them, or actively choose not to do so, in favor of some others of similar ranking. In your above "audit" of a few days this month you apparently seek to denigrate me by declaring such assertions as "You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself". '''I believe that in the last few years, and perhaps even the last decade of additions, MANY quotes, and perhaps MOST of the quotes added probably don’t have any rankings by others than those who posted them. '''As the years pass by, though there certainly are exceptions on some pages where good suggestions have been bountiful and even remain so, many of the remaining quotes which have been passed over for selection for many years on many pages are increasingly those which have NOT been highly ranked by anyone, save perhaps the person who posted them.

You seem to seek to imply or insist that I act regularly or even primarily in favor of my own suggestions, and do not provide fair or sufficient regard to the suggestions of others. I do not believe that claim is born out by the actual record of my many years of activities here. I have provided a link to the QOTD suggestion pages as the links of the birth and death dates of nearly all authors pages. I certainly have not attempted to impede others from making contributive suggestions to these pages, but over the years relatively few have done it, and personally aiming to maintain an abundance of riches on most pages, rather than a paucity of prospects, this has left the bulk of the current suggestions available on most pages as my own. I here provide a summary of the characteristics of the options available and the resulting choices annually made upon these dates in February since 2004 :


 * February 1 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 10 of them already used, there have been only 7 suggestions by others, 6 of them already used, and only 1 currently left unused.
 * February 2 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only been 10 suggestions, 5 of them already used.
 * February 3 : Other than the 70 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been 16 other suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 4 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 4 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 5 : Other than the 41 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 3 suggestions, 2 of them already used, and the remaining one currently sustaining a ranking of a 1 and a 0.
 * February 6 : Other than the 27 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 2 suggestions, 1 of them already used.
 * February 7 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 8 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 7 already used, there have been 18 suggestions, 9 of them already used.
 * February 9 : Other than the 22 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 3 of them already used and one of those remaining ranked only 1 by me and 0 by another admin.
 * February 10 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 11 suggestions, 3 of them already used. I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:


 * I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.
 * February 11 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 7 suggestions, 6 of them already used. I believe you again QUITE DERISIVELY and with DELIBERATE DECEITFULNESS describe this year's choice for this date with the summation: "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.
 * February 12 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been 22 suggestions, 5 of them already used.
 * February 13 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 1 of them already used. Of this year's selection you state: "2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself." ALL of the remaining suggestions on this page have a current ranking of "3" and thus ranked very good and eventually will likely be used. MOST of these are my suggestions, and in reviewing the page of the author of many of these statements I encountered one which I considered superior to any I had yet posted of him for that particular day, and posted it with a ranking of 4, and used it.
 * February 14 : Other than the 61 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 4 proper suggestions out of 7, 1 of them already used on this date, 1 already used on another, 1 with a ranking of 2.25, 1 with a ranking of 2.5, the 3 others actually improper posts of insufficient notability or sourcing. This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.
 * February 15 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 4 of them already used. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — those 2 remainders have rankings of 2.5 and 1 — and that one is not even properly sourced.
 * February 16 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 17 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, none of them extremely high ranking at 2.3 and 2.5 for over a decade, and one of them marked "0" as unsuitable since 2012. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." In fact, seeing only a couple relatively poor alternatives to the relatively low ranked or unsuitable quotes, I searched and added several more by Henry Adams several hours before the deadline, most ranked as "3" and one of them ranked as "4".
 * February 17 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been 8 suggestions, 2 of them already used. As I have already indicated my inclinations for this date had shifted from originally one to use a quote of Emma González towards at least a slight preference for one by Hans Morgenthau: "Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those." In seeking definite sourcing of the quote prior to using it, I encountered several other statements by the same author which I found to be even better, and resolved to use one of them instead, but failed to format and post any of these earlier in the day, and when I did arrive to make the postings, briefly considered prior options, but went with what I genuinely believed to be the best of the statements available for usage on that day, which reads:


 * February 18 : Other than the 53 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 19 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 1 of them already used, one remainder ranking at 2.5, and none of the others ranking more than 2 and two of them ranking less than that. This is one page which I believe will definitely require an influx of new and better options within the next couple of years.
 * February 20 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 10 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 7 of them already used.
 * February 21 : Other than the 16 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 12 suggestions, 4 of them already used.
 * February 22 : Other than the 31 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 23 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, all 5 of them already used.
 * February 24 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 14 suggestions, most of these added only within the last 5 years, with 4 of them already used.
 * February 25 : Other than the 28 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 9 suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 26 : Other than the 7 suggestions I provided, all 7 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 10 of them already used.
 * February 27 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, all 3 of them already used.
 * February 28 : Other than the 15 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 4 of them already used.
 * February 29 : Other than the 11 suggestions I provided, 3 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, 1 of them already used.

In summary of the above tallies:

I myself have, over the years, provided 740 suggestions on the 29 pages of this month, used 362 of these, and there have ONLY been a total of 342 suggestions OTHER than my own, and from this much smaller base, 114 of them have already been used, for a ratio of exactly one third of their total. I am not tallying the relatively low rankings many of the remainder have, but I believe that to be the PRIMARY factor in regard to why most of those remaining have not been used. '''I am here emphasizing the slightly surprising fact that over the years, though I have supplied a substantial SURPLUS for most pages, there have actually been, in total, FEWER suggestions even made by others than have actually been NEEDED to provide quotes for the month of February.

Though as I have stated, currently it is increasingly common for suggestions to have few or no rankings other than that of those who provide them, I believe that the rankings of others of many of my own suggestions which have been already used have generally been higher than that of most others, and especially so in regard of many of those which remain with relatively low rankings after many years, and which I now very seldom take into primary consideration, although I have very occasionally altered my own assessments of the incidental suitability of some of them for specific dates, and actually shifted my own low rankings to high ones to use a few of these.

In two of the pages listed in this month-long sampling I have already actually used ALL of the suggestions other than my own which have been provided.

— I believe that all of this indicates I have given very substantial consideration and use to the suggestions of others, and remain very conscientious in making assessments and any selections for QOTD, whether suggested originally by myself or others, or even people who have been extremely adversarial towards my own or most people's preferences.

I believe that only very skewed perceptions or conceptions of things would produce from the above facts any contention or efforts to imply that I am regularly or even primarily unjust or unfair in making selections. I have provided many suggestions, nearly all of which I believe to be worthy of eventual use in the years to come, and have very eagerly chosen many of those provided by others which warrant prominent consideration — and especially those clearly favored and not merely commented upon or ranked in the lower ranges by a majority of others. I again emphasize that the number of rankings of a quote is NOT a primary consideration, and I believe should not be — but rather the actual QUALITY of the quote for the date, as indicated by the average rankings, or in the case increasingly of many suggestions — their only rankings. Though prompted in part by some anger at some of your assertions, I actually am NOT resentful of having been impelled to make this response, because it has actually provided me an opportunity to meticulously review some things in ways I had never before done, get a clearer gauge of what many of the states of things on many of the suggestion pages actually have been and presently are, and develop greater sense of some of the actual statistics regarding the choices provided and decisions made. I am now likely to make a choice for the current QOTD soon, and then attend to other matters. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

•• Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day discussions (26 February 2020)

 * For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day after much of the above discussion.


 * Maintenance instructions

I've added some notes toward documenting the mechanics of how to maintain the QOTD. Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As you have noticed I have edited these. Some of the info on providing suggestions might be useful, but I believe posting explicit procedures involving creating future QOTD pages would far more likely be exploited by vandals and trolls than by any good faith editors. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please relax the protection on this page to at least semi. There has been no vandalism on this page. With your deletion of content you involved yourself in a content dispute regarding the content of a project page. The use of your administrative tools in a content dispute is inappropriate. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have definitely involved myself in a content dispute, and removing what I am prone to consider malicious vandalism of such postings to a very prominent page as indicate very rash, imprudent provision of such information as represents procedures NOT commonly used by general editors, and far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than good faith editors. Your apparent intention of persisting in such postings does NOT bode well in any assessments of you as actually committed to prudent good faith editing. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * Please revert or reduce the page protection you imposed, then in good faith we can discuss the content you deleted. JessRek6 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should I expose the page to further editing by you at this point? I put a single day-long block to prevent further repeat of postings of such information and instructions as I believe are NOT appropriate to this page and do NOT reflect any generally used or or even discussed procedures here, but only a sudden assertion of suppositions of what is or should be appropriate by someone I perceive to be a extremely contentious and apparently extraordinarily resentful because I did not use your suggested proposal for a QOTD last week. I was just about to be leaving, but do not need to do so immediately, but I definitely believe the information you were seeking to post certainly does NOT belong on this page, and it IMPLIES as routine for general editors such procedures as have NEVER actually been so. I expect that other admins should weigh in on some of the occurrences and proposals which have occurred, and I believe insistence on posting such material here is simply NOT a reasonably acceptable proposal, by any admin who examines the issue. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not examine them closely earlier, but even the "Maintenance instructions" you suddenly posted WITHOUT discussion, and which I did NOT remove are rather redundant in regard to some of the links and information already on the page — I can see that some revision of the previous content, perhaps incorporating some adaptations of your statements or intentions might be used, but I again assert a strong conviction that the further procedural descriptions which you had posted simply do not belong here, and I believe do NOT reflect ANY procedures which have ever been, or should ever be, standard ones for general editors. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Deployment instructions

Recent contribution to Wikiquote, reverted, moved to discussion page. This is the second half of the maintainence instructions, and describes the mechanics of setting up a QOTD for a future date.

2. Deploy the selection
 * 1) Create a new page for the date of interest, for example Quote of the day/February 14, 2021. This page will be transcluded onto the Main_Page at 00:00 UTC on February 14, 2020. This step requires an autoconfirmed account.
 * 2) Edit the quote. As a starting point, cut and paste the contents of a recent quote of the day page. Locate the "quote of the day" template and replace the "quote" and "author" parameter values. Format the quote appealingly with line breaks. Optionally, add a relevant image. Preview and save the page.
 * 3) Protect the quote. This step requires administrator privilege. Add, or ask a Wikiquote administrator to add, a wikilink to the new quote to page Quote_of_the_day/Protect. Cascading protection will fully protect the quote.

General interest in participation in the QOTD selection process is evidenced by the immediately preceding section of this discussion page,, an unanswered request from 2011. Documenting this process is long overdue.

Fundamentally, Wikiquote is a Wiki. Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do. The QOTD is a highly visible feature of our main page, but the QOTD is not Wikiquote; any potential exposure to the QOTD is not an existential threat to Wikiquote.

We offer extensive online help documentation on every other aspect of editing the Wiki as an expression of our invitation to open collaboration. Every time we make something easier for good faith editors we make it easier for vandals. No content or process is so mission critical that it must be reserved solely to the purview of any one editor.

Security by obscurity is the weakest form of security. These instructions do not include anything that could not be discovered with a little clicking around. Documenting this process does not significantly increase any exposure. A manual editing process that ideally should be performed once per day must be able to be performed routinely by many editors, and must be able to be staged ahead of time, not at the stroke of midnight by one and only one editor.

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "General interest in this process is evidenced" by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. {I posted this remark using quotation marks around a statement she had posted in her above comments — subsequent editing of the above statements after my post here does not leave this fact as so evident, but I am simply inserting this comment here to clarify that matter. ~ Kalki 2020·02·27}
 * I believe MUCH of your activity in recent days has been encouragement and promotion of disruption and even arrogant and asinine vandalism. I twice removed your posting of the above "Deployment instructions" as to a procedure which has NEVER before been advocated as one available to general editors. It is has NEVER been discussed at ALL by ANYONE, until you suddenly of your OWN initiative posted it AS IF it were an AUTHORITATIVE declaration of POLICIES and PROCEDURES here — which it DEFINITELY is NOT.
 * You seem to seek VERY EAGER to speak AS IF you were already an official spokesperson for this project, and declare "Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do." Our project is indeed developed as a product of good faith activities — and NOT one that accepts or condones what are QUITE evidently insincere assertions, BAD FAITH exposures, misleading distortions, and outright lies — and invitations to potentially greater activities along those lines on the part of others by advocacy of activities such as are NOT standard practices here, and are NOT generally approved as such — and never before have such ridiculous suggestions been so asininely presented AS IF they should be "standard procedures". I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways. [I have been asked by JessRek6 to strike out some of my harsher comments, and have agreed to take into consideration doing so, with various regards, and I begin doing so here with statements in this posting, which I can agree was an overly harsh response to such activities as occurred a very short time before I posted it, and which I believed to be an improper postings of what I believe to be very improper and deceptive material to a significant project page. I thus now modify this statement to indicate that at that point I definitely had increasing contempt for what I perceived to be apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways. I now acknowledge and assert that this person would have very different perspectives on things, to even consider doing what has been done, and am currently attempting to understand many of the complexities of the motives and emotions involved. ~ Kalki 2020·02·29] ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I am a supporter of Kalki for almost anything, in this situation I support JessRek6. Every autoconfirmed user should have the right to select QOTDs, and if the user is not trusted or the user disobeyed maintenance rules, that user can be notified / blocked. Kalki has also misused admin rights to protect a page when in a edit war. (Josephine W. （Talk）  11:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Sorry - I have changed my mind that the deployment instructions are not necessary, as ranking quotes could replace this, but I did not say users should not have the right to select QOTDs. I think QOTDs' selector could be voted every mopnth or so. Thoughts? (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  10:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I am not certain of all you are declaring, but I believe I understand much of what you are indicating. I believe that many years ago there probably was at least some brief discussion of developing a council for general selection of the QOTD, but there actually never was much interest in developing one, and I simply continued in my role of selecting the quotes with as much consideration for many diverse aspects of situations and rankings as I could manifest. Thank you for your comments here. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * I have been accused of having "misused admin rights to protect a page when in a edit war". I do NOT agree with so simplistic an assessment. I took admin action, first in in removing material I believed to be BOTH deceptive and improper because it was posting of material on procedures which were presented AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned policies and procedures, which they very definitely were NOT. At the time I considered this a very deceptive attempt at a "surprise assault" on the actual formalities, practices and procedures which have existed since the first years of the project without ANY complaint at all for MANY years. I state elsewhere that prior to the recent activities of JessRek6 there were probably at least one or two other remarks of dispute of my choices, but the ONLY complaint made which I very distinctly remember regarding my assessments and selection of a quote, prior to hers, is one I believe probably dates back to 2004.
 * When I first removed her additions I did this with an edit summary plainly specifying some aspects of my reasons for doing so: "These instructions on the whole I believe might not be necessary, and the particularly the procedures I am removing for posting the quote of the day are such as actually have never been open to most general editors, &  would very likely be exploited by vandals."
 * Very soon after removing this material which I indicated as being improper, she reposted it, at which point I again removed it, protected the page for one day, to permit the considerations of others of the matter within a short while, and made the above response. My days have been rather hectic for some time now, so I would have to review some sequences of events to give a proper summation of some of them, but I believe that in most regards I have acted with what others can accept as proper intentions.
 * Though I certainly have long encouraged editors to contribute suggestions, and rank them in the existing processes, and welcomed and used their contributions, I certainly do NOT believe "Every autoconfirmed user should have the right to select QOTDs", as it would permit regular opening of major avenues of disruption to many incidental or very narrow agenda driven editors with NO extensive or actual investment in the integrity of this project, or even outright hostility to it and irresponsible determination to disrupt it.
 * In assessing the current situations I request you and anyone else interested to please at least glance over the very extensive discussions which have been collected on my talk page, beginning with those which JessRek6 initiated there, and continuing in other sections from other pages, including this one. I know the discussions have been extensive, especially some of my refutations and rebuttals to some of her accusations, but I believe most can appreciate that it can sometimes require extensive exposition of material to rebut or refute accusations or allegations that can be made very concisely and simply with no firm evidence, and only very short and very misleading statements.
 * I actually have several other matters to attend to for a few hours, and will be leaving soon, and might be busy elsewhere much of the day, but will probably resume attending to these discussions, perhaps within only a few hours. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I agree that making two reverts within ten minutes and then full protecting a page involved in a content dispute could be easily construed as misuse of the tools. I won't change the current protection as it was set by an uninvolved administrator. As to whose opinions matter and whose don't, current policy is pretty clear on the matter: "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility."  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will begin with a few droll observations that I hope will be accepted as such, and will provide a bit of levity and amusement amidst many generally dreary matters:
 * You rather astoundingly seem to have uncovered what any definitely obtuse and absolutist mind could easily construe as a severe and gross lapse of judgment and fairness on ALL of our parts — by such a clearly absolute edict we very clearly should NOT engage in maintaining or creating ANY page as being locked to being edited by "admins only" — as that would definitely and very clearly and IMPUDENTLY violate the putatively sacred principle and absolute edict of asserting within ANY and ALL contexts that all admins "are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility". Of course I myself, as merely an absurdist idiot well familiar with many forms of absurdity, irrationality, idiocy, ignorance, wit, wisdom, confusion and sarcasm dressed up in various guises, do not actually tend to advocate or approve the embrace of obtuse absolutist interpretations of ANYTHING. Obtuse absolutists of course are very probably prone to consider that holding to such a stance is a grievous flaw on my part, and I must honestly confess to it.
 * Getting back to more somber commentary I will state that ANY practical procedures and policies which are sufficient to ranges of manifest tasks and responsibilities generally develop acceptance, approval, and enduring success with or without many associations with such extraneous formalities as many might favor, and others might disregard or even revile. But aside from the formalities favored or disfavored by any factions, there are always fundamental principles and practices of rationality which it is nearly always dangerous and detrimental to disregard or revile, and I perceive that there are clearly growing indications that many forms of rationally established and exercised principles, practices and expectations ARE actually being disregarded, derided, denigrated, degraded and reviled, even if primarily in such ways as are subtle or surreptitious.
 * I am very aware that many will not be aware of all I mean by such expressions as I use when I attempt to accurately indicate various matters, and that I should be extremely considerate of the limits which exist on all of us to perceive and communicate many things, but I will begin to provide examples of such behavior as I have mentioned, and of such proposals of practices and policies as I perceive to be quite irrational in many ways.
 * I wish to preface some of my remarks with a genuine repudiation of some of my OWN errors of recent days: caught up in considerations of many diverse things, I was clearly failing to perceive many significant aspects of what others were perceiving or failing to perceive, and since becoming more acutely aware of some of the implications of this fact, I am far more prone to cordially and charitably temper many of my expressions and assertions, even towards those I am inclined to consider as being unjustly hostile or adversarial on various matters.
 * I believe that most people can recognize that much of the most insipid or insidious trolling often involves such activity as does NOT clearly or sufficiently violate any specified rules which might clearly exist, but simply is such activity and behavior as is intended to regularly or intensely irritate, annoy, and even severely harass, implicitly deride, denigrate or defame others without necessarily directly or indisputably breaking any declared or established rules of propriety, practices or policies. The most skilled trolls are very often much more successful in many of their efforts to disrupt the regular or established activities, options, practices and procedures of others than outright and overt vandals, as their activity very often is NOT clearly such behavior as can definitely merit a direct removal or block of their existing privileges and practices.
 * I am NOT someone actually inclined to advocate the severe or needless punishment, limitation or burdening of others, even if they have evidently done severely disruptive or unjustly damaging things, such as easily offend or anger most people, but I am usually inclined to only take or advocate such action as is rationally perceived as necessary and proper to attempt to stop, neutralize, or at least effectively diminish the most definitely dangerous or detrimental forms of behavior observed or evident. In our limited ranges of engagement here, it is a very common thing for admins to take relatively severe measures against obvious vandals and spammers and remove material without complex considerations or presentation of evidence in each case, and after such behavior as is very commonly and regularly observed among spammers and habitual vandals accounts or IP numbers are simply blocked, as a now rather automatic and properly prudent procedure among many of us. I do not believe any of us actually take any measures to actively track down or directly punish any of the individuals who regular irritate and annoy us with their engagement in such activities, and I believe I am very prone to have serious doubts of the rational integrity of anyone intensely inclined to do so. Yet if one wished to be absolutely and tediously technical about some matters of many of our standard procedures EVERY such action we engage in with spammers and many vandals could in quite valid but misleading ways be characterized as engaging in a "content dispute" or abrupt preemptive actions in anticipation of potential "edit wars." I do not believe any of us wish to extend to spammers and overt vandals such benefits of our own or other's potential doubts, or extend to them an actual assumption of sincere or "good faith" behavior on their part, when they engage with clearly insincere and deceptive behavior such as we regularly encounter and grown all to painfully familiar with.
 * Having expressed all that, and anticipating I will soon have to attend to other matters and eventually leave on various excursions, I will close by stating that in response to recent activities of I have found it appropriate to post a request to the admin noticeboard. I am NOT requesting any immediate measures against her privileges here, but simply provide a presentation of some of her activities as misguided misuses or abuse of existing privileges which I believe she presently should be requested to cease. I have attempted to keep the remarks there as brief as possible, while presenting significant aspects and some of the actual and potential consequences of her activities, and I invite you to examine the issues involved. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Request strike-through of personal attacks (28 February 2020)
Please strike through the personal attacks you posted at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day and Template talk:QOTD Ranking. Thank you for your commitment to Wikiquote policy, to civility, and to focus on content. JessRek6 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I might actually to some extent consider, and even conscientiously negotiate and agree to the striking out of many of my harshest but sincere and I believe generally accurate statements in response to many of your actions (including your derisions and denigrations of me and my assessments), such as you characterize as "personal attacks" though I might be more inclined to characterize them as sincere declarations of observations of situations, IF you yourself also agree to strike through all of your definitely REFUTED allegations against me, which are just as validly characterized as "personal attacks", though perhaps less harshly worded ones. I am actually inclined to only request that of those which I perceive to be clearly refuted and thus clearly unjust derisions or denigrations, even if they might also perhaps be validly characterized by you as having been "sincere declarations of observations of situations" even if many or most of the contentions made in them have now been DISPROVEN, or proven to be fallacious or deceptive, even if not actually proven to be deliberately deceitful or dishonest. I am actually now genuinely less inclined to characterize them so harshly as that, for several reasons, which I might to some extent explicate in coming days. I have actually been reconsidering some of my assumptions in recent responses and comments in regard to a few things, and am genuinely inclined to be a bit more tempered and moderate in some of my contentions, and think it more than likely I will review anything I am inclined to compose at least a couple times to minimize the retention of any assertions which might be overly or imprudently harsh, and easily perceived as unfair or unjust.
 * Having attended to other matters much of the day, I certainly have not had time to examine things sufficiently to propose any lists as yet, and I intend to be leaving again soon, so it might take at least a day or two to for us to come to compare any proposals, let alone come to any agreements, but with all of those which we could agree upon we could also post visible and/or hidden notices that these strikethroughs were done as the result of negotiations between us toward mutual agreement to strike-through these remarks as among the less prudent or justifiable of our previous statements.
 * I also request that you desist or at least begin to reconsider your present actions which I would sincerely characterize as evidently a developing trolling campaign against me. Specifically, at present, such actions as extending the summations on the suggestion pages to what I believe are meant to be derisive or accusative additions of "proposed and selected" to all my own recorded proposals. It is a simple FACT that I have long been the selector of ALL the quotes for many years, and by far the most extensive providers of OPTIONS, and I certainly have the right and sometimes no other choice than to select those I myself provided as suggestions. You might be incredulous toward my assertion, but the fact that your proposal of the 17th was NOT my own was actually one of the STRONGEST and most enduring reasons I was actually inclined to use it this month, though I certainly would not have considered doing so if I did not also perceive it to have substantial merit as a statement.
 * In making this request I assert I am certainly not ashamed of having been the selector of most of the QOTD proposals since 2003, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, as in all of those years I have had VERY FEW objections to my particular selections. There is actually only ONE which I presently remember very clearly, very early on, probably in 2004, though I believe there was probably at least one other, and perhaps even a couple, prior to your present objections and apparent hostilities which I would gauge as CERTAINLY the most extensive and intense that have EVER existed in reaction to my suggestions, assessments and selections.
 * Quite aware that you seem to be someone inclined to be very hostile to many of his expressed opinions on many matters, I actually hesitate to note that in what is apparently the spiteful ranking of my own and other editor's clear preferences for the QOTD of February 29 with a "1" you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned editor who was most prolific in suggesting militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT, whether perceived as ironic or not. I also wish to emphasize that despite my disagreements and contentions with that previous user, and his often adversarial relation against me and many others, I actually accepted and approved many of the suggestions he provided which had evident merit to me and to others, but not his most bizarre proposals, which remain poorly ranked or rejected by most others. I actually hope we can eventually come to more extensive agreements on many matters than ever occurred with him. He sometimes actually still edits here, but very rarely now.
 * I will also note that your addition of apparent objections to quotes specifically BECAUSE they come from the "same source" as previous quotes as have been used, or have been suggested by editors who have had previous suggestions used seems innately irrational and unjust and seems to imply that at some point, it would be fair and proper if all the best sources, and most chosen contributors should be EXCLUDED, and perhaps even the poorest ranked suggestions should eventually be favored, if they have been proposed by editors who have not yet had their proposals accepted, or whom provide quotes from sources not yet used. You actually rank a quote an exceptional 4 specifically for that reason stating "source […] not previously used on this date; suggestion from editor not previously used on this date". I believe most people, and you yourself, after a moderate amount reflection, can recognize that an inclination or desire for such a practice to be irrational.
 * Some of your above actions reveal one of the reasons that after years of experience, even I myself have usually become more reluctant to rank quotes generally until I am ready to select them, despite having previously ranked nearly all quotes soon after they were posted, for many years. I have simply learned that doing that, it is far too easy for trolls or hostile agents of some agenda to deliberately negate and nullify the genuine consensus which develops on pages, and to impede the selections of the generally most admired and admirable quotes, as you presently seem to be becoming inclined to do in what is actually a definite recurrence of the prior strategies of . Thus some of your current behavior to that extent does resemble some of his, but I genuinely hope that with further consideration and reflections you will eventually abandon those similarities and proceed to activities and contributions here of a more broadly welcomed character.
 * I also genuinely hope that with good fortune and opportunities you soon can expand your awareness and observations into paths of greater charity and good will towards others, and grow in the profound happiness and joy ever to be discovered in the beauty of Awareness, Life and Love of ALL — and despite our apparently strong current disagreements on substantial matters, I seek to extend genuine assertions and expressions of charity and good will towards you, now, and in coming months. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I reacted to your recent activities on the page for 29 February, much as I often had to do in coping with the manipulations of after his often habitual ravaging of the previous selection options available on pages, and added a few more rankings. From what had for 10 years existed as among the clear preferences on the page, I selected the one which had been clearly marked as most preferable yesterday, and your efforts to skew the results AWAY from that one, had actually resulted in one other which technically managed to tie it in rankings, but which I honestly could not choose as preferable.
 * I had actually ranked the quote now chosen a "4" yesterday, with the prospects of power outages in my area in mind, but I ended up not selecting it ahead of time as I had intended, because I did not have any clear idea of an image to definitely use with it and I desired to seek some new image, not yet used on this wiki, if possible, as I had done yesterday, and I did find such today, after scanning through several hundred seeking for options, and thus today's QOTD presentation:


 * I perceived the quote to be very apt for the present period of many confusions yesterday when I upgraded my ranking of it, and believe it even more apt today. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I asked you above on this talk page to please refrain from Nazi comparisons. I asked you to strike through personal attacks. You wrote a wall of text including yet another comparison of myself to an unnamed pro-Nazi editor you once encountered. JessRek6 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are actually no "Nazi comparisons" made by me anywhere here. I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particulars to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD, and I did mention that as way of referring to the frustrations of some contentions with his efforts in that regard, and yet I also indicated he also promoted others generally acceptable and highly ranked by most others, which are actually still being used TODAY. Though he might reasonably be assumed to be such to at least some degree, I did not actually declare him "pro-Nazi" as his actual levels of sincerity and confusion on many matters was often very difficult to determine, and in any event I definitely have not declared YOU that. I have indicated I was quite willing to strike through many of my harsh assertions if you were willing to strike through your your false ones, and actually have already struck through some of my harsh assertions even though you have not agreed as yet to strike out any of yours.
 * I have already spent far more time on the computer than I had intended, having encountered some fortunate discoveries that impelled me to do a bit more work than I had planned to here, and will probably soon begin attending to many other tasks, though I am not entirely as rushed on a few of them as I was a very few hours ago, and possibly might have more time on some things than it appeared I would yesterday. In any event I do remain extraordinarily busy, and am not likely to have much time to spend here, and am not planning to do so until very extensive and time consuming tasks are completed. AFTER those are done, I hope to complete what I can of many conversations here, as soon as possible. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Role of rationale in consensus (29 February 2020)
Immediately prior to selecting a Quote of the Day for February 29, you down-voted a suggestion from a colleague of ours, offering no further comment [].

As you know, by Wikiquote policy WQ:PG, Wikipedia policies and guidelines usually apply to Wikiquote. Policy Wikipedia:Consensus explains that consensus is not vote counting. Wikipedia:Closing discussions asks that consensus be determined through careful consideration of the arguments. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion documents our community norm that "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."

What are your thoughts on this community norm? JessRek6 (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon reading them, I immediately had numerous responses to many of your statements, and typed out several, but had other things to attend to, and after later reviewing some of them, will probably refrain from posting most of them, though they very clearly make several major and valid points you would probably not welcome quite succinctly, and instead of these I will begin by addressing more general matters first, and then gradually proceed to various specifics of your statements, queries and other activities. I continue to have very limited time to deal with many matters, so I do not expect to address all of these adequately today, or even perhaps within the next week.
 * There are many diverse and sincere expressions of genuine virtue which I easily and genuinely respect, but I will not feign either extensive familiarity or much respect for all of the diverse declarations and statements which can be presented outside of viable contexts, from various places on this generally admirable site, which various people have sometimes posted with very limited rational examination of their significance, propriety, justice or applicability to general or specific aspects of this site, often while indulging in their own inclinations and efforts to find ways to rigorously limit, impede, disrupt or totally control many sensible and common-sense options of others, and promote often insensibly or senseless made assertions as if they were absolute and absolutely ethically and rationally perfect edicts, with little or no actual rational regard or comprehension to many contexts, or rationally bound limitations upon them.
 * I also will here confess that I believe I have not usually been someone extremely sensitive to many merely incidental remarks regarding evident or observed qualities about the activities and apparent aims of myself or anyone else, such as some seem to commonly deplore as an entirely unacceptable "personal attacks" if they simply are not worded in ways considered sufficiently cordial or complimentary, or even cravenly condoning of cunning conniving conceits and craftiness. Nor do I believe I have ever been someone who has been inclined to accept as welcome and genuinely complementary or even sincerely flattering such expressions and assertions as are simply skillfully crafted deceits.
 * I certainly can and have accepted honest and sincere criticism and even derision of myself, and some of my apparent qualities, aims or actions, even if I believe them extremely mistaken in various ways. I am quite strong enough to bear common slights and even genuine attacks of relatively low consequence, with little or no concern or resentment. I am very much less prone to placidly accept clearly unjust derision or denigration of anyone or anything genuinely worthy of respect as helpful to Humanity, nor approve of dishonorably twisted uses of generally honorable words and expressions of generally virtuous principles to actually signify or consummate intentions and actions of disrespect and even outright evil.


 * I am quite sure that not all who read this will immediately or sufficiently understand what I mean and signify with such expressions, but I hope that many eventually will, and become more profoundly discerning and genuinely respectful of the utmost virtues which Humanity can and very often does manifest, and less acceptive of many of the contrived conceits by which both relatively minor mischief and major evils are very often done, and even condoned.


 * In recent days various forms of activity I am very prone to consider irrational, deplorable, very likely malicious, and perhaps even malevolent have occurred. I have no intention of even attempting to specify or elaborate upon all of them, but I do intend to indicate some aspects of a few, to the extent I can, before attending to other matters.


 * Recently after scanning over the records of much of your activity, in which you extensively ranked as "0" and thus "Not acceptable as QOTD" many of the quotes which I had provided over many years on February 1 and March 1, apparently largely because I had posted them, I noticed you had removed a quote from a page, and then ranked it "0" on a suggestion page not only because I had suggested it, but because it was "unsourced:"


 * After investigating matters further I actually can and DO accept both the removal from the page, and even of your "0" ranking of this particular statement, as your actions regarding this seem to have been informed by the fact that I had last year posted it to the suggestion page, ranked with a 3, with the additional comment "with a lean toward 4; but with some reservations — not able to precisely locate the original source of this, as yet." I had hoped to eventually find at least a fully proper citation to a reliable source, but further searching, in response to your activities regarding it, sufficiently confirmed to me that the attribution is not sufficiently reliable, and indeed at most should be in a "Disputed" section, but more likely simply on the talk page of the author's page. LAST YEAR, I had been VERY prone to use it as QOTD, but in seeking to confirm the source indicated on the page, as I regularly do, I did not succeed in that, and instead used another quote from among several which I did more extensively source than they previously had been on the page.


 * I believe these observations indicate much of the meticulousness and extensive consideration of many diverse aspects of things which I regularly engage in, here and elsewhere, generally quietly and without much comment upon it, such as I have recently felt impelled to provide in response to some of your remarks, allegations, accusations, innuendo and implicit or explicit derision.


 * I hope to resume more fully constructive discourse with you soon, but have to begin attending to many other matters, and at this point I would specify that examination of your recent activities has led me to post a notice on the admin noticeboard regarding some of them. You are invited to read it and comment upon it however you find appropriate. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Thank you for your time in replying. I have read your reply. Sorry I am still unsure of your answer to my question above at the top of this talk page thread. Respectfully please allow me to rephrase:
 * Wikiquote policy
 * Wikipedia:Consensus
 * Wikipedia:Closing discussions
 * Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
 * What application of these policies, guidelines, and community norms do you see to the process of nominating, seeking community consensus, and the final selection of the Wikiquote Quote of the Day? Thank you in advance for your concise reply. JessRek6 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been attending to a few other matters recently, and intend to soon be leaving as soon as possible on a couple excursions. I do expect to be extremely busy with MANY matters in coming days, but I will attempt to provide what I hope will be an adequate response to your queries within the next day or two.
 * In my very brief response today, I will note that though it is is of no real importance to me, I know that I had been tending to assume that JessReK6 probably indicated a "Jessie" or "Jessica" or such name, and have thus been inclined to refer to you as female, but well aware that it could conceivably indicate a "Jesse" or some other name, I realized this could be a mistaken assumption. My own designation here and elsewhere as "Kalki" is a name applied to both males and females, and I have no desire to specify my own gender, as it is entirely irrelevant to my role here, and I have encountered both assumptions or suppositions on the part of others with little regard, and their errors have not been of any great concern to me, so I can certainly understand if you do not wish to specify such things either. I just wanted to avoid any unwelcome errors if you do prefer to clearly designate either gender, and I have actually not examined your past edits very extensively, so I do not know if you have done so previously. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * I had hoped that noting our broad areas of mutual agreement would serve as a basis for future civil collaboration on content. I hope you will find the time to express your concurrence on some fundamental policies, guidelines, and community norms. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I remain reserved in my assessments of many assumptions and assertions which have been indicated. In my earlier response to your most recent batch of queries, I noted "I do expect to be extremely busy with MANY matters in coming days, but I will attempt to provide what I hope will be an adequate response to your queries within the next day or two." As you have perhaps observed, I have since posted a notice in the top heading of this page, that because of suddenly and EXTREMELY changed circumstances in regard to a number of things which I definitely need to swiftly attend to in coming days "I certainly do NOT expect to have time to address discussions here beyond VERY minimal levels for at least a few days." This remains true, and thus I do not presently have any intention of getting into very extensive discussions here or elsewhere on the wiki where you have also today posted new questions to me, and I will simply point out that in regard to my earlier general remarks here I was simply providing significant indications of what I regularly observe about many aspects and forms of human behavior, habits, assumptions, perceptions, conceptions, honesty, sincerity, delusions, deceptions, deliberate deceits or determined devotions. In such responses as I will attempt to make to your latest list of queries, in what I now believe might not yet be for at least several days, and very conceivably a week or more, I hope to produce sufficiently elucidating comments on such further specifics or particulars as you have indicated or provided. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

•• Request for admonition at Admin noticeboard (2 March 2020)

 * A request of remarks on the activities of JessRek6 to the admin noticeboard.


 * Request for admonition against recent misuse and abuses of existing QOTD ranking system and suggestion pages

I have previously declared some of the behavior and assertions of  as appearing to me in various ways suspicious or improper, but I have not attempted to prevent her from engaging in any forms of activity which I have simply found to be mildly irritating, mildly misleading or merely troublesome in various ways.

I will state that she has attempted to make very sudden and not previously discussed and completely undisclosed one person declarations and descriptions of entirely new practices and policies AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned in regard to various things, by various measures, some of them quite improper.

This first of these became clearly evident in attempts to post AS IF they were established and approved official procedures such practices as have actually NEVER been such, to a project page.

There were earlier merely some discussions in which she used or advocated irrational and improper methods of tallying of the rankings of quotes as if they should be used to designate cumulative rather than averaged values, and other assertions in which I found little or no merit. I found these mildly surprising, but so plainly irrational as to not be seriously alarming in most regards.

I am inclined to characterize some subsequent behavior as subtle trolling or derision, but the presently most serious incidents of a clear misuse and abuse of some of her privileges have been evidenced in her postings to pages for suggestions for the QOTD of recent dates.

This has thus far only been done regarding 2 pages, but it definitely should not proceed further.

On the rather meager and seldom used options available for February 29 she ranked as "0" and thus "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" every quote suggestion but 2, justifying this with assertions either that "Quote from same source [i.e. AUTHOR] used previously on this date" and/or "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

On the more extensive options for March 1 she has thus far limited her rankings of "0" only to my particular suggestions, ranking all 7 of my unused suggestions "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" sometimes SOLELY with the putative justification "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

It is possible that she has perhaps begun to become at least a little bit more appreciative of some of the absurdities of some of her current actions, as rigorously applying her novel criteria to the options available at the March 2 page would rank 21 generally highly ranked options on the page as "Not acceptable", leaving only 1 option on the entire page, a quote proposed in 2009 by but not rated more than a 2 by anyone, including him (and which I actually give the highest expressed regard, declaring a "lean" toward 3, in ranking it 2). Applying the same criteria by which she has posted a "0" to suggestions of the previous two dates would declare as "unacceptable" all present and future quotes by such individuals as of Dr. Seuss, Carl Schurz, Russ Feingold, Mikhail Gorbachev, and John Irving, as they have all previously been quoted on that day of the month, and also one suggestion which I actually already had indicated was unacceptable without explicitly ranking it "0", as having been wrongly attributed to Peter Straub, when it is actually a statement of Jesus as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.
 * Correction : In doing some quick examination of upcoming and very recent QOTD suggestion pages, while preparing to develop considerations for upcoming QOTDs, I realized that I was actually mistaken in my previous remarks when I indicated that applying the criteria JessRek6 had used to mark many quotes as "0" on pages of recent days to those of 2 March, would have left only 1 low ranked quote suggested by Zarbon viable out of 22 other options. I had actually failed to notice that several suggestions by Zarbon had already been used previously for that day of the month, and thus applying the criteria she had applied in previous days would have actually left absolutely NONE of the 22 options posted on the page unmarked with a "0", and thus designated "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day". ~ Kalki

She is plainly and methodically applying criteria entirely extraneous to the merits of the quotes themselves in ranking them, in a quite irrational and improper abuse of the most extreme of the available rankings. I request that other admins recognize that the criteria she has been attempting to apply, advocate and copiously imply to be validly established by various postings, are actually disruptive and detrimental to the genuinely and sincerely contributive efforts of many others, including myself, and to join me in requesting, and indeed instructing her to desist from this behavior of irrationally applying such irrelevant criteria, as an improper disregard and disruption of the many-years-long rational applications of these rankings by most others. I also believe she should be officially requested to remove or alter all the "0" rankings justified merely by the criteria that material from EITHER the "source" or nominator had been used previously for that date, as being an innately inappropriate use of the "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" designation. I certainly would not seek to forbid her from using the "0" ranking for legitimately valid reasons, with which it has long been used, such as the clear falseness or the perceived foulness of a statement, or its lack of correct or reliable citations.

There are also matters of lesser importance, one of which I will specify here. As I have been the selector of the QOTD here since 2004, developed the ranking system in use without any significant controversy as to my selections made with it in all the years since it was developed until the current ones which arose after I did not select a quote JessRek6 had suggested for a recent day, it is is certainly not necessary to expressly specify on each and every QOTD that they were "selected by Kalki", as she has begun to do on several pages, and I request that I be joined in requesting her to cease in this activity also, though it is of clearly lesser consequence. Even so, such a procedure of specifically identifying every QOTD I select as having been selected by me from the available options is no more necessary or proper than it would be for each and every quote on every page be specified as "provided by User:WHOEVER happened to actually post it." It simply adds to distracting and generally unneeded and useless information.

I welcome consideration and discussion of the matters involved, and hope that we can soon come to agreements. I will be notifying her of this discussion also, so that she can respond as to her understandings, and any rationale or motive she might wish to present regarding her actions. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * • Subsequent notice posted to the talk page of
 * I have posted remarks concerning some of your recent actions to the Admin noticeboard. You are welcome to make your own comments upon them there. I hope we can soon come to better agreements and understandings in the coming days. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we take a step back and think about how ridiculous it is that we have a fight over this and we've written a novel on this page? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I...yeah...if you want to foster some type of collaborative discussion, you're going to have to start with comments that are less than 1,000 words.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of my past statements, which I have conceded have sometimes been worded a bit more harshly than necessary have been criticized as having been made "without evidence", which I actually believe to be an error. The immediate remarks might not be directly attached to what I perceive as very copious available evidence, but I have agreed it is proper that I should temper my remarks, and be prepared to provide any statements I make with directly associated evidence.
 * My initial comments were roughly 7,400 words characters (thus roughly 1,480 words), simply describing the situations which exist on a few pages and providing links to these, for those who wish to examine the specific evidence of my assertions. I confess I am a person very prone to very complex thoughts, and thus sometimes prone to making very complex and precise expressions in trying to indicate some matters as accurately and honestly as I can, in such ways as I believe can be adequately understood by others. I do not wish to clutter the minds of others needlessly with many observations such as are currently in my mind, so I will close now. Thank you for your existing attention to this matter, and I hope we can come to agreements upon it. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Brevity is the soul of wit, but more to the point, being unable to engage in a community discussion with something other than 1,000 to 4,000 word comments is itself disruptive in a way, and stifles the ability of a broad range of community members to participate.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a list of diffs to edits which you claim violate policy or guideline or demonstrate some other abuse or misuse. Thank you in advance for your concise reply. JessRek6 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here. Instead of my adding a further clutter of "diffs" of your extensive edits anyone could simply use the available links to the mentioned pages and examine them, and anyone actually wishing to examine the many available "diffs" more meticulously can simply browse through the recent history of those very few pages. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Do you understand why statements like, "I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here." are not helpful? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that a "no", then? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IF you REALLY want to get into disputes about it, I can and DO understand MANY reasons why MANY "sincere observations are quite obviously often not helpful" — and decided to rapidly strike this one out, in compliance with your expressed concern regarding it. I am also very familiar with MANY reasons why they are not WELCOME by many people, and am obviously often willing to accommodate and defer to their express concerns — even if I genuinely do not actually agree with all of them, I can and am willing to be extensively accommodating, so long as it does not violate my own or anyone else's actual integrity. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the answer is no. It's not helpful not because of its sincerity (this is obviously a self-serving way of interpreting this) but because it's more rambling from you. If you string together enough Latin-derived words, it's not like you're right all of the sudden. I actually was on your side in regards to editing the template above and then you went off the rails and wrote a novel that no one on Earth is going to read. I expect admins to have an ability to communicate with other users and be accommodating and clear; you're displaying the exact opposite here. Let me encourage you in the spirit of collegiality to take a step back and not post here for at least a bit. Nothing is being accomplished here and no one is reading all of your word salad. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I defer to your expressed displays of wisdom. I had been almost prepared to leave several times, including just now, but will be doing so soon. I hope we can both better and more happily communicate sometime in the future. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be right - her sudden edit on Wikiquote:Quote of the day seems to be inappropriate, which means I’m neutral, with a weak support for the block. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I just got online moments ago, and read your comment. I want to make clear I am NOT requesting any form of block of JessRek6 at this time, as I don’t believe such measures are as yet necessary, but I am simply asking for extensive recognition that there IS actually a very significant problem with many of her recent edits, current activity and apparent intentions. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I actually plan to be posting a notice to my talk page indicating I suddenly anticipate having VERY little time to spend here for the next week and especially the next few days. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 07:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Kalki. It's clear to me now that JessRek6 intends good faith. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  08:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

86.135.249.221
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.(<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 10:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I don’t have any experience as an admin anyway. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  10:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC))

• Please strike through comments involving Nazism (3 March 2020)

 * 22 February 2020 in section February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question above on this talk page, in the context of a question from a non-administrator, you defended for your advocacy of the QOTD :

...I openly appealed for greater participation in the ranking processes at the Village pump to prevent the "Quote of the day" from becoming the "Nazi quote of the day"...


 * 22 February 2020 Occurring as it did in reply to my 2nd ever comment on your talk page, I thought this escalation of rhetoric was unusual, and so sought to directly address it in hopes of nipping it in the bud :

To clarify, I am not in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day", and further I don't think it is useful to bring that into this discussion.


 * 28 February 2020 in section Request strike-through of personal attacks above on this talk page I asked you to strike through personal attacks.


 * 29 February 2020 In a long reply you doubled-down on your Nazi comparisons :

...you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned editor who was most prolific in suggesting militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT...


 * 3 March 2020 And again :

''...I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particular to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD...''

Please strike through your comments referring to Nazism. JessRek6 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC) From your very first posts to my page and throughout many subsequent ones here and elsewhere you have asked many MISLEADING questions which posit FALSE premises, made many MISLEADING statements which seek to introduce or further strengthen the apparent credibility of actually false premises, and at various points made provably false statements, some of which I have already expressly refuted as such. Please STOP making requests that I give any apparent credence or support to what I very clearly perceive to be FALSE assertions and absurd claims about what I actually said and did which you seem to wish to support with out of context and partial quotations which you make FALSE statements about, and attempt to provide a FALSE context. There was NO "doubling down" on "Nazi comparison" because there was NO initial "Nazi comparison" in regard to ANYTHING — there are ONLY your increasingly irritating attempts to imply that there was, apparently in regard to yourself in some way, by making severe sounding rhetorical assertions and claims, misleadingly quoting only portions of statements AS IF those should be counted sufficient evidence of those ludicrous assertions and claims, while deliberately OMITTING the actual context of the statements as a whole which clearly show such claims to be FALSE. There was mention of someone else's promotion of Nazi quotes, within the recounting of my experiences regarding disputes about selections of QOTD. '''There was very definitely NO claim or attempt to imply at all that you sought to promote Nazi quotes. There are ONLY your apparent attempts to imply or insist that there were, when there were NOT.''' There are many other particular observations about your current assertions and polemic rhetoric which I would like to specify, but I will at least presently refrain from doing so, as I am aware I have many other far more urgent and important concerns. As I have already stated several times, there currently exist many matters which I must attend to within a very few days. I am quite willing to resume discussions AFTER I complete those tasks and remove the notice concerning them from the top of this page. Please refrain from making further elaborate demands on my very limited time until after I have done that. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * You seem to be quite intelligent enough to understand that you are very often actually making very misleading statements and assertions, and implying or asserting things to be true which are NOT. That is one reason I have sometimes been inclined to make harsher assertions regarding some of your statements and activities than I might otherwise, but as I have stated before, when you first attempted to make my remarks regarding ANOTHER person's inclinations seem to be applied in some way to you: "I definitely never implied in ANY way that you were a person in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day" — and consider any attempt to imply that I actually did as a very petty polemic."
 * I was just about to go out the door on at least a brief excursion, but decided to look at the computer before leaving, and wish to note that the complete statement which is the last one you edit in ways which are deceptive, in full reads, in further emphasis of some of what I just a bit earlier indicated here:
 * There are actually no "Nazi comparisons" made by me anywhere here. I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particulars to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD, and I did mention that as way of referring to the frustrations of some contentions with his efforts in that regard, and yet I also indicated he also promoted others generally acceptable and highly ranked by most others, which are actually still being used TODAY. Though he might reasonably be assumed to be such to at least some degree, I did not actually declare him "pro-Nazi" as his actual levels of sincerity and confusion on many matters was often very difficult to determine, and in any event I definitely have not declared YOU that.
 * I do sincerely hope we can eventually discuss things with far greater cordiality, but I definitely hope you very soon grow in your awareness and appreciation of many aspects of the vital virtue of honesty, and the importance of embracing it in one's own declarations and permitting and honoring it in others. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * Please reflect on this request and your behavior. Simplest for everyone would be for you to strike through your most offensive comments. Show us your commitment as an administrator to our civility norms. Striking through would take less time than a wall of text. JessRek6 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no extensive "wall of text" in my most recent responses to your remarks, simply relatively short and very to-the-point assertions and examples of that which I address with sincere civility and good faith in the potential for most people to develop capacities to engage with others in such sincere civility as does not preclude or forbid honest observations or criticisms. I will make another now.
 * Any insistence that any person should ever surrender to or simply accommodate what are very clearly demands of blatantly displayed deceitfulness are among the most offensive comments I believe could ever be made to any human being by any other. I do not demand you strike them out — but instead simply assert that they testify very clearly to many aspects of your evident intentions, attitudes and behavior regarding many things. I do not intend to converse with you a great deal beyond the bare minimum for at least a few days as I have MUCH more important matters to deal with than what I perceive to be irritating, recurring and zealous trolling.
 * There have been many matters I have been dealing with, and continue to attend to as best I can, but among the most urgent which drastically changed my options with many others has been preparing for the death of an aunt who suddenly went into hospice care a few days ago, and who today has just died. I have had to make and continue to make many extensive physical preparations in regard to the accommodations and plans of many close family members, primarily siblings and parents, related to the upcoming funeral and the weeks after it, as well as many other things of great urgency. I do not intend to spend very much of my limited time dealing with such remarks as I perceive to regularly exhibit arrogant deceitfulness, apparently prompted because I did not happen to use a particular quote which had been proposed regarding a passionate listing of examples of BS (Bullshit) as the QOTD on the 17th of last month, and instead, believing it had broader relevance to the issues mentioned in that quote and also to many other diverse issues, including the currently developing crises of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak used:
 * Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.
 * ~ Hans Morgenthau ~
 * That is about all I have to say right now, and all which I presently intend to do in regard to your copious assertions, inquiries and demands, until I have completed many major tasks and duties of the next few days, and have far more time to deal with what others might exist than I presently do. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

•• Accusation of "Incivility from an administrator" at Admin noticeboard (5 March 2020)

 * For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of a posting by JessRek6 of Incivility from an administrator at the admin noticeboard, after much of the above discussion.

Please see User talk:Kalki. Please engage there to spare this noticeboard as per the instructions above on this noticeboard. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs at linked talk page section. JessRek6 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs below. JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point, JessRek6. Nazi quotes are definitely allowed, as wikimedia was designed for everyone to freely share their knowledge. I’m with you on this topic. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I believe there are various forms of confusing statements here. I believe that JessRek6 is accusing of me of incivility in providing very clear evidence of very misleading deceptions on her part, and at times declaring them to be such, and in making such statements as:
 * "There is no extensive "wall of text" in my most recent responses to your remarks, simply relatively short and very to-the-point assertions and examples of that which I address with sincere civility and good faith in the potential for most people to develop capacities to engage with others in such sincere civility as does not preclude or forbid honest observations or criticisms."
 * "Any insistence that any person should ever surrender to or simply accommodate what are very clearly demands of blatantly displayed deceitfulness are among the most offensive comments I believe could ever be made to any human being by any other. I do not demand you strike them out — but instead simply assert that they testify very clearly to many aspects of your evident intentions, attitudes and behavior regarding many things."
 * As to the title of the section, JessRek6 titled the section on my talkpage which she refers to as "instructions" to me, not I. She has also been responsible for initiating MOST of the sections currently on it, not I, and I indicate truthfully that I perceive most of these to have been "apparently prompted" because I did not happen to use a particular quote which she had proposed regarding "a passionate listing of examples of BS (Bullshit) as the QOTD on the 17th of last month" (which is an accurate description of the quote which lists forms of declared "BS"), and I actually preferred another of more moderate and temperate nature, which had application to broader issues, as well as those mentioned in the quote she wished to be used. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * It’s not clear what you mean by the above comment. Can you express it in a more easy way for me to understand since I am Chinese? Thanks.(<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)) +  Please reply the comments I made on my talk page, thanks. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W.  （Talk）  06:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)) ✅ JessRek6 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of many of the problems involved in translations, and also that sorting these out properly can be even more difficult when even in the original language expressions are not used properly, or used misleadingly. In my own comments I was speaking towards anyone concerned with these matters about important aspects of remarks JessRek6 and myself. I am not sure of the significance of some of your remarks, nor entirely to whom they are directed at times, but I believe that in all of them I can recognize the genuine desire to be considerate of others in many ways. I do not actually recognize such genuine desire in many of the statements of JessRek6, and many of the confusions hers could produce seem to be deliberately intended results. As I have indicated many times recently, in relatively brief remarks, I have many urgent reasons not to attend to many matters here for very long. I do hope everyone involved or considering these matters can and will actually sort through the existing confusions, and that eventually a more clearly understood and generally charitable state of affairs can be firmly established. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 09:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Diffs


 * 29 February 2020 :

...you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned editor who was most prolific in suggesting militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT...


 * 3 March 2020 :

''...I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particular to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD...''


 * Discussion

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are again clearly REPEATING your recurring practice of providing portions of quotes craftily edited to make them seem to imply they indicate something they do NOT, and within their actual context they are at times clearly being used in rejecting or REFUTING such claims as you have recurrently made. To these you add links to "diffs" by which some people might notice such things, but I find MOST people do not actually examine these extensively or carefully, if at all, and I am very familiar with such uses of this misleading presentation process, having encountered many deceptive uses of it in the past.  ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Please strike through the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate to the community you have some understanding of our civility norms. JessRek6 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope that you can soon come to recognize the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate you have some genuine understanding of civility. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * Then may you provide your understandings of civility, Kalki and JessRek6? Like JessRek6 posted before, I would like some diffs of nonhelpful edits. I seem to be neutral currently. (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  06:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Our civility norms are documented here WQ:PG and here WQ:NPA. Diffs are above. JessRek6 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many notions of proper civility and improper disregard, derision, denigration, defamation and desecration of it, but my own notions of the utmost forms of genuine civility correspond with major aspects of ethical integrity and a deep and abiding respect for Humanity and the capacities for most human beings to manifest genuine ethical integrity with honest compassion and compassionate honesty and to oppose any endeavors to unjustly or needlessly constrain or harm the lives or proper rights of anyone. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We could probably use some outside input here.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will likely respond further when I am able - and when those involved have a chance to fully provide their responses, but my initial take is that this has gotten blown way out of proportion. I do not believe that Kalki equated JessRek6 with Nazis - perhaps it could have been worded better, but I believe the intent was to say that tactics used in the discussion reminded Kalki of those used by someone else in the past (who happened to favor quotes from former Nazis). I will reserve further comment as I am unable to spend more time at the moment. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems like inappropriate behavior where Kalki has been hotheaded a little bit but I am not seeing any actions that warrant an indefinite block. I have also publicly questioned his fitness as an admin here and I think he has made missteps but this does not warrant the proposed solution below. To be frank, there is no way that I am going to read thru all of this so if someone wants to provide me a handful of diffs that show otherwise, then that's great. The two I saw above were flimsy for an indefinite block of an active admin. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, even as we speak, the target talk page is getting longer and longer, as content from other pages is copied in, further frustrating investigation. Please read the two diffs above. You wrote, "active admin". How is that relevant? Our civility norms apply to all editors. Admins are expected to lead by example on all behavioral norms. If anything, behavioral norms are more important for admins. I am supposed to be able to participate without harassment by personal attacks. A lack of active admins does not warrant a lowering of our standards with respect to our behavioral norms. The goal of the proposal is not punishment, is not the block: the goal is to have the editor recognize their personal attacks and demonstrate their understanding. This editor has learned other of our norms in the past, such as our multiple account policy, but only slowly, and under protest, and now they need to clearly demonstrate they have learned and understand our civility norm. If in your view the proposal is unwarranted, what is your proposal? I would welcome any proposal that includes some demonstration of understanding such as striking through. JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because someone who does a lot of good things and a few bad ones is different from someone who only does bad ones. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No amount of constructive edits give license to personal attacks. No one is so irreplaceable they can behave however they want. No one is saying anyone only does bad edits. Please focus on the two diffs and what our response should be. What is your plan for making Wikiquote safe? An active admin may pepper their talk page with comments comparing others to Nazis? If I want to contribute to Wikiquote, I need to put up with personal attacks from editors with more edits than me? 17:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As I wrote, I don't think these two diffs are enough to show that someone should be indefinitely blocked. Some poor wording and some interaction with a user that I think an admin shouldn't have but you're vastly overplaying your hand with this response. You should not put up with personal attacks, no. This thread has gone on far, far, far too long: let's all please get back to actually editing the quotation directory. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the area of agreement as you see it? The proposal is a block, to last only as long as an administrator of Wikiquote insists on their right to compare others to Nazis. They can end this discussion, or end the block at any time a simple demonstration of their understand our civility norms, by striking through their personal attacks. This thread was opened 5 March. This is a serious issue demanding administrator intervention. JessRek6 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are either not rationally registering or merely not acknowledging is that MOST of the respondents here are clearly recognizing that your CLAIMS that I compared you to Nazis is simply FALSE, and a VERY MISLEADING representation or perhaps genuinely MISTAKEN assessment of what actually OCCURRED. I was just moments ago responding more extensively to these assertions elsewhere, where you recently repeated them with new variants, and I believe these false assertions should be countered — though I recognizing some might perceive me to be simply responding to trolling there is danger that some individuals being more casually observant might actually be misled by the repetitious vigor your quite FALSE allegations. As I state there also: "Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions." ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 14:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kalki is without question a first-class oddball, but comparing the conduct of one editor with another who happened to have a fetish for Nazi quotes is not the same as calling that editor a Nazi or suggesting that they have a similar fetish. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 05:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thank everyone for their recent remarks regarding these issues. Other than my own, I had not witnessed any definite pushback at all against some very misleading or definitely false assertions and allegations against me, which is one reason, with one notably extensive exception, that I attempted relatively brief but vigorous responses every time there were repeated attempts at such. I hope that these discussions can remain more moderate now, and can soon come to a satisfactory close, within the coming week or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 05:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , On Wikiquote, I am my editing behavior. There is no useful distinction between "You are a Nazi." and "Your edits remind me of a Nazi", and there is no distinction whatsoever when you are on the receiving end, let me tell you. Is it your understanding of WQ:NPA, that one editor may compare another to a Nazi, if it is couched in a sufficiently indirect, oblique manner, or buried in baroque language? JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How to recognize personal attacks, from WP:NPA:


 * What is considered to be a personal attack?
 * Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)


 * JessRek6 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 14:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , comparing an editor to a Nazi is not poor word choice, it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that I do not believe that Kalki did in fact compare you to a Nazi. The comparison was between your actions and the actions of another person that also happened to favor quotes from Nazis. That does not logically mean that you were being called a Nazi. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , comparing an editor to a Nazi is not an idiosyncrasy, it is not a fetish; it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I echo UDScott's analysis. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposal: indefinite block

Propose an indefinite block (with the privilege to edit their own talk page as per usual) until they strike through personal attacks.


 * Support. Under all circumstances and in all contexts it is unacceptable for one editor to call another editor a Nazi, or for one editor to say they sincerely believe another editor resembles a Nazi, or for one editor to say another editor's edit behavior reminds them of an editor they thought a Nazi sympathizer. Incivility is a problem, the inability to recognize incivility is a serious problem, and the inability of an administrator to recognize their own incivility is a very serious problem. Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue and a disqualifier from editing privileges. JessRek6 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have to some extent already demonstrated with several responses in recent days these allegations are clearly FALSE, and appear to me to be maliciously contrived slanders, and very misleading statements to support such slanders, on the part of JessRek6, and later in the day, after I return from a necessary excursion, I am willing to provide further elaborations more clearly proving them to be. I do NOT have time to do that right now. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Opposed (as the apparent target of this "proposed action"). In my initial very rushed reading and response, earlier, it was evident by placement that these accusative assertions were directed towards me, but on examining them further I realize that though there are actually severe allegations apparently indicated here, presently there is nearly as much a deficiency of clear identifications made in this series of misleading statements as there is a deficiency of truth and accuracy in many of them, as regards me.
 * A summary of the 3 sentences which currently exist in the above "Support" assertions, by the person who proposed the block:


 * 1) Though some relatively reasonable sounding assertions exist in it, EVERY implicit allegation (to the extent they can be assumed to be directed towards me) in the first sentence of the above assertions is actually FALSE. There are some which might seem plausible to those who make only casual examination of the portions of some statements she has presented at times, but as stated, they are actually and literally FALSE. I have NEVER called her a Nazi, NEVER said I sincerely believe her to resemble a Nazi, and don’t believe I ever actually referred to ANYONE at all in these recent conversations as a Nazi sympathizer, and probably no one at all, ever on this wiki.
 * 2) In regard to her second sentence, I can actually AGREE with EVERY statement of it, but not the apparently intended targeting of some of them, for though incivility is definitely a problem, I perceive that rather than I (or any other admin), it is JessRek6 and her extreme accusations and apparently punitive aims which have increasingly demonstrated an actual tendency towards aggressive incivility — and her most extreme accusations seem to be slanderous FABRICATIONS she hopes at least some others will simply accept as if entirely fact.
 * 3) I would actually be more temperate and charitable than she is in her third sentence, for though I definitely do AGREE that "Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue" I would not permit merely that to serve as an absolute "disqualifier" in regard to her or anyone else retaining editing privileges. Only worse deficiencies of cognizance like blatant defiance after official warnings against trolling or such possible directives as to cease from repetitiously posting harassing accusations, derisions, slanders, or even implicitly extortionate demands to user's talk pages should merit a block.
 * I am presently confining myself here to direct rebuttals of a few assertions in these most recent allegations. Others might follow on my own talk pages within the next few days.  ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Weak oppose (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  03:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Your reasons are more important than your vote. JessRek6 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think this page should start archiving itself. I can’t stand rolling the mouse that long. I think 2.1-3, 2.5-7, 2.9, 2.11, 2.13, and 2.15 sections should all be archived. Ideas? (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Please start a separate thread for other topics. JessRek6 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposed finding: comparing an editor to Nazis is a personal attack

Policies and guidelines states:

The policies of Wikiquote's sister project, Wikipedia, usually apply equally well to Wikiquote.

Specifically, the following aspect of the civility policy of Wikipedia No personal attacks also applies on Wikiquote:

What is considered to be a personal attack?
 * Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons.

Comments? Wikiquote administrators, please weigh in. Thank you in advance. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you HERE have entirely REPEATED a statement I responded to above, and since you did so, I repeat my response here also, to aid those who quite understandably are not inclined to read through this mass of contentions thoroughly:
 * It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡
 * Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Recognizing VERY early on in the tenor of your first series of remarks on my page that you had apparent intentions of being deceptive in various ways, I archived my entire talk page in a way I had been neglecting to do for YEARS, clearing it of almost all other discussions to make way for what I anticipated might be extensive contentions, and they already have been to a FAR greater extent than I had even expected. That ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones. Contentions against them have already consumed very much of my time in an extraordinarily busy period of URGENT activities I actually MUST completely attend to within the coming week, and whenever these current contentions finish I intend to archive all of them in a sub-page of my talk pages as a permanent record. As I now have many other things I must attend to today, I will be leaving soon, but I will be back within a few hours, and I hope that there will not be much more for me to address here today. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement. For a slightly less concise response, see below, where I repeat the statement I make in bold here, in response to your repetition of the entire remark you made here. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. One editor comparing another to a Nazi is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. These personal attacks must be struck as if they never existed. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the above remarks by myself and others more thoroughly: I am NOT the one making personal attacks here. She is repeatedly making FALSE and ultimately baseless claims by various distortions and misrepresentations of the actual FACTS of the matters, and when she BEGAN doing so, I several times asserted she was NOT assessing things truly or properly — and these remarks themselves she has quoted portions of to make them SEEM to indicate the exact OPPOSITE of what they truly declared. I hope that you will reconsider your remarks and strike them, and make a more informed and considerate decision. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 14:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated immediately above, I have made many accommodations to others who might wish to examine many of our recent discussions and your distortions and deceptions about many aspects of them, and presently my "ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones." I do not expect most people to peruse it thoroughly but the evidence is copious. I will very soon be leaving, and this is probably my last remark until I return. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement (as I stated of its earlier iteration above). You apparently are are relying upon a dubious assumption that the more evidence provided, the more most people will avoid examining it in full, and thus the more it can be effectively ignored or denied relevance by those wishing to exploit understandable ignorance and common indifference. And also the unfortunately often more effective strategies of those who recognize that constant repetition of even blatantly false assertions can make them seem credible to many. Unfortunately for those who regularly seek to be deceptive, not all people are so easily duped, and sufficient numbers of people often DO examine matters sufficiently to see the copious evidence of the falsehoods and irrationality of many of such assertions and claims. On my talk page I actually do intend to produce far more succinct summaries of things to provide easier comprehension of the disputes currently upon it, probably with at least a few such "diffs" links as you repetitiously demand, as will counter many of your deceptive assertions, within the next week — but that will take time which I cannot entirely spare for at least the next few days, and I don’t intend to work on it extensively until AFTER many urgent tasks which MUST be finished within a few days are completed. That is about all I can reply at present, as I must be leaving in a few minutes, and will probably be gone for much of the day. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I...don't really at all understand why you are taking the time to copy and paste several pages of discussions on your talk page. These are all publicly available discussions. It's not as if you are transcribing the text of an email that the rest of us don't have access to.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am doing it quite aware that MOST people are NOT going to take the time to trace through all the "diffs" that have been or might be provided, and all the various pages JessRek6 has begun discussions on — and I intend to make sections for all these disputes available on ONE current page, and then eventually one archive page, for the people who do want to at least examine some of the various details, and check on the accuracy of various assertions made. As I stated above (before an edit conflict) I have to be leaving in a few minutes — and am a bit more rushed right now. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I don't understand why on March 9, 2020 you used collapse templates to hide the two diffs supplied above []. JessRek6 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In that case, Support rescinded. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's drop it and get back to editing. I don't see anything constructive coming from this discussion, just acrimony. Let's be civil and constructive here: this is supposed to be fun. All the time everyone is spending here talking is time we aren't spending adding quotations to this directory. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal
 * Sigh. I would support a community restriction on random SHOUTING in indeciferably FORMATTED comments.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Administrator strike-through and warning

Propose administrator strike-through of personal attacks on the target talk page and an administrator warning to Kalki regarding our policy of no personal attacks.

Comments?


 * Support as second choice. JessRek6 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:JessRek6, you have to stop this discursive pleading. The community here has given you plenty of opportunities to air your grievances and the more you post, the less support you have. I understand that things can get heated and all of us do or say things we sometimes regret but this incessant harping on this issue is frankly just a disruptive tempter tantrum. As someone who has been entrusted with helping manage this community, I don't see the value in these threads and I am letting you know that this needs to end. The administrators here do not have a consensus for your preferred action, we will not, and this post is just tiresome. I'm closing this entire discussion to anyone other than an admin for the purposes of reopening it with something new and constructive (seems doubtful): i.e. Non-admins, do not edit this discussion any further unless it is reopened by another admin. Please go back to actually editing the directory of quotations and let's leave this be. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to stop
 * I agree with Koavf. This has become overwrought. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Responses to hoaxes and trolling

 * Remarks on hoaxing and trolling by crosswiki-vandal Nsmutte, who started hoax edits in the guise of 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 07:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Prior and subsequent activities at Admin noticeboard:


 * Can i create Jesus related article in Wikiquote?

(Jesus MyGods1 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC))


 * Yes User:Jesus MyGods1 you can create articles related to "Jesus",but your user name is not allowed in Wikiquote.

The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames

Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.

My advise change your user name in following way :

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes

(Yarddose (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC))(157.48.52.243 07:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

NOTE TO ALL ADMINS: It is more than likely that this entire posting involves hoax discussions between iterations of a banned Wikipedia editor: User:Yarddose has been blocked at Wikipedia as a sock puppet of banned editor Nsmutte. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a quick point of order here - we already have a very extensive Jesus article here. We also have New Testament, Jesus and the rich young man, and Race and appearance of Jesus, so I would be curious as to what it is that we don't have about Jesus that merits a separate new page. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 05:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:BD2412, Please block User:Jesus MyGods1 , because any one can create articles about "Jesus" , but his user name is against Wikiquote user name policy.

The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable in Wikiquote:"Jesus MyGods1" is a religious user name.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames

Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.

(Yarddose (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC))(157.48.1.63 07:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * Another NOTE to ALL ADMINS: The name disputed here probably should be blocked, but what I believe is actually going on here is a new manifestation of disputes I had happened to come across at least a couple times in the past, which initially made me recognize this as a probably bogus dialogue: I am not familiar with all the details, but knew that there was a banned editor who seems to be carrying a grudge against an editor in good standing who uses "Bonadea" as a user name — thus the recurring attempts to make that particular name seem one that should not be permitted. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 06:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Previously i dont know who is Bonadea, but in discussion i got information,


 * User:Kalki, Are you supporting prohibited user name?

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames .. Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bona-Dea

(Yarddose (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC))(157.48.52.243 07:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Previous Wikipedia discussion: Administrator opinion

I don't know why you are asking me, I'm not responsible for either of the blocks you mention. The policy is clear; religious names may offend people and therefore aren't acceptable, Whether the name of a Roman god would really have offended anyone is another matter, but strictly speaking it's in line with policy. If you disagree with the block, discuss it with. The deleted page title was clearly disruptive editing, not an encyclopaedia article <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea is a Roman religion god. Administrator of Wikipedia clearly tells, Roman religion god name " Bonadea" prohibited.

Other Wikipedia administrator openion:


 * There are some users who might find using Jesus(the religious figure) as a username offensive. I would advise to you choose a username that does not cause you grief. User:331dot .11:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Arbitration committee member opinion

Administrator User:PhilKnight  opinion on this subject:
 * The username was blocked for having a religious name in his username. User:PhilKnight   19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(Yarddose (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * I believe that there has already been quite enough HOAXING and cross-wiki TROLLING by the recently created account to merit an indefinite block. Anyone wishing to challenge this assertion, and possible prompt action in regard to it can examine the users current record at Special:CentralAuth/Yarddose. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 06:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am saying here the truth and Wikiquote user name policy, religious user name are prohibited. I brought here the Admins opinion about religious user names

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames

Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as'Jesus" "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", "Bonadea" or "Allah") are prohibited.

(Yarddose (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * This user has been banned at Wikipedia as being a spamming, hoaxing, trolling abuser of multiple accounts. Some of his typical edits with which I became somewhat familiar with were related to attacks and trolling of User Bonadea and cookie-cutter statements such as those above. I have blocked this editor for one day to permit other admins to examine the circumstances within a short time, but I definitely recommend a permanent block of this account, and will also be blocking the "Jesus MyGods1" account as genuinely unacceptable user name which is probably simply part of the hoax setup for further trolling of Bonadea. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 07:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki

https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Kalki ,

User:Kalki is prohibited user religious user name. All religious user names old and new prohibited in wikiquote.

kalki is a religious god name, prohibited in Wikiquote, due to this reason, he is mis using his power and blocking me. Please read the link i provide. Kalki is hindu religious god user name. User:Kalki is prohibited user religious user name.He know this fact. I explained here many admins not supporting religious names.


 * Kalki is also a broadly used personal name, used by both men and women without offense to any religious traditions, and like "Bonadea" one not widely associated specifically with any widely renowned or manifest historical religious figures such as Jesus or Buddha. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 07:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks


 * NO classification in this policy, Either Block Kalki and Bonadea or allow them to change their user name. Jesus ,Allaah also Broadly used personal names.No exception for all religious user names..Truth is truth, not change with situation (157.48.45.166 07:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Read Wikiquote user name policy : Religious user names :"Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged" .Kalki and Bonadea never change user name policy to get benefit for their user names (157.48.45.166 07:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * I have been a registered user at Wikipedia for over 17 years with NO disputes about my user name, and over 16 years using it here with no disputes. Since registering it early in 2011, Bonadea has primarily had only your recurring harassment and trolling contesting her use of that username. Your hoaxes and trolling in malice toward her is one of the reasons your accounts have regularly been blocked. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 08:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your explanation is not satisfactory! Once you know the "User name police against your user name", your minimum responsibility is change your user name. Till today you have tried to hide your "Religious user name" . Now all users realized that your user name against policy. So you change your user name and guide Bonadea to change his name. Please dont try to block who questioned you. If you not try to change your user name, even you editing from 17 years, you will be block.(157.48.45.166 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

(157.48.45.166 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * You know very well that your malicious hoaxes, trolling and arguments against Bonadea's use of that name have NOT succeeded at Wikipedia. I blocked you because I recognized the patterns of your recurring vandalism and trolling, and saw that you were a blocked iteration of a user banned at Wikipedia, and are now a cross-wiki vandal whom I believe merits a ban at all Wikimedia projects. You are presently wasting my time and yours, and I am a person very displeased at having my time currently wasted, amidst FAR more significant matters than attending to your petty hoaxes and trolling. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 08:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Final question, User:Kalki,Yours and Bonadea user name is religious related or not ? (157.48.45.166 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I have used Kalki, and a few variants of it, since very early childhood, and like Bonadea it is NOT a name generally identified as or presumed to relate sacrilegiously to any religious figure, any more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Paul or Mary. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 08:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already posted a request for global lock of these accounts, and what do you mean by early childhood? (<span style="font:100% Times;white-space:nowrap;border-radius:99em;padding:0 4em;box-shadow:2px 2px 11px #bbb;background: blue;color:purple " lang="en">Josephine W. （Talk）  11:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
 * The syllables of the name were very distinctly prominent in early childhood dreams (at least as young as the age of 4 and quite probably earlier), and I first discussed it as being told to me within a dream to be my "true name" with a non-parental adult examining and testing various aspects of my very clearly advanced mental abilities at the age of 5. I first became introduced to some of James Branch Cabell’s use of it in his satirical fantasies after that discussion, but though I did encounter some very brief mentions of older traditions regarding it within a few years, I was not extensively familiar with them until well after I had begun using a variant of it publicly in my early teen years in signatures on artwork. I have regularly used it and occasionally a few variants of it ever since, as I do here, now. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kalki and Bonadea both user names are Religious gods names. So i am advising the two users to change their user names, if they not interest to change user name , both users may be block at any movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki

https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Kalki

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bona-Dea

(Hunchuteri (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC))


 * 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you an administrator on Wikiquote?
I notice you have a presence on here. Are you an admin? I need to tell you something. --Technoquat Quotation (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done an permanent block on as a trolling and vandalism only account of a long term abuser of wiki accounts. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC) + tweak

Noam Chomsky quote
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) 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

RFB?
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?

(also, today's QOTD broke a bit, pls fix!) <font color="#0ea900">dibbydib ⌐■_■ ( barate me ) 10:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Assistance requested
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 Administrators%27 noticeboard.
 * 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)

Linter concerns...
Hi, Not urgent but I will note that a fair propotion of the remaining Linter identifed concerns on
 * https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/misnested-tag
 * https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/stripped-tag

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 recommadation
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

You said what you said and i understand that but why be so cruel and harsh on me would you give me guidance on wikiquote or not please Angie williamz (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Help???
How can I help here??? AtlasJunkie (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Goebbels
The category Nazis is OK, but why do we have the category People from Nazi Germany? All Germans between 1933 - 1945 were people from Nazi Germany.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I recognized that category was rather absurd when I mentioned it (as perhaps it's existence as a rationale for having removed the one which I restored to the article). I actually might not have noticed it before — but I tend to believe that many of the categories are rather presumptive or needless, and really have spent little time in developing them beyond very basic designations years ago, and I tend to apply only some of the most basic of them to articles myself, and rarely contend about those others chose to apply or develop out of varying motivations. I simply happened to notice your edit, and could not see any valid rationale for removing the designation of "Nazi" from Joseph Goebbels. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi kalki
If your not busy could you help me out with where I can find sourced quotes? I asked UDScott and left a message on village pump. I'm still confused. Do I need to watch tv or movies then write down quotes? Or search over the internet? Thank you. FcoonerBCA (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever quotes one finds to be noteworthy should simply be provided with a citation to verifiable source, such as a specific published work, film, video, television show, or song lyric, and preferably be widely found by others to be noteworthy. The advice provided by UDScott as to contributing quotes or pages to the project is sound: "probably the best place to start for someone new to the project is here. It is important to keep in mind that if a valid and verifiable source is not provided for a quote, it is likely to be removed and/or the page deleted." ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Revertings
Hello Kalki! The conversation about linking to Wikiquote has led to the situation that about 100 links are reverted. Is this legal and good to the project?--Vilho-Veli (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not currently familiar with either the conversation or the situation you mention. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * En-wikipedia's Village pump.--Minä muka (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. I have now noted various aspects and assumptions of the conversation at "Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing", but I am still assessing many aspects of developed and developing situations, and potential responses to them. I do not currently have the time to adequately examine all the currently available information, but will very likely make at least a few remarks on things within a day or two. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) + tweak
 * Note that Vilho-Veli account and other socks were globally locked mere minutes after opening this section, and the Minä muka account was then created to post the reply here. Alsee (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You made a mistake
Those edits made on Madea Goes To Jail and Madea's Family Reunion were not vandalism, nonsense or gibberish. They were already poorly formatted, and all they were doing was just fixing it. 152.26.199.24 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I happened to check in just moments before you began reverting some of my reversions, and noted some of your activity as rather standard trolling, and blocked you, and responded to your notice at the "Vandalism in progress" page with a summary of actions made:

They harrassed 2603:6080:a608:500:c4a7:879:c426:975b for being constructive. 152.26.199.24 16:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * New report 2020-12-10, 1616
 * The anon IP I initially blocked ( exhibited some standard trolling and vandal behavior, with their very first edit summary stating: "This is an edit you cannot and will not revert!" The content of the pages were moved to titles not matching the corresponding Wikipedia pages, and I restored them to the standard matching titles. I just happened to check in again just moments after the IP 152.26.199.24 became active, and noted the remarks on my talk page, but other apparent trolling activity, including the remarks here prompted me to block that IP. I did restore some of the very slight formatting improvements to one of the pages, made by the previous IP prior to one of the page moves, but rejected the non-standard coloration of text and non-standard page moves. I was only very briefly checking in, and will not be able to stick around long. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

That is about all I have to say on the matter. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ClownDeputy is back...
...and it is out for revenge in the form of...

All of this user's garbage/nonsense edits (which include illegal caricatures that do not belong on Wikimedia!) have to be hidden and it must be blocked for good. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)