User talk:Atcovi - Wikiquote

[1][2]. Don't ever do that unless you are an admin or supporting an admin in maintaining a necessary block notice. That's the only time I've seen it's allowable to revert a user from blanking comment on their talk page.

I've reverted alteration of my comments, that's a different matter, alteration actively distorts the record. I've also probed or questioned partial archiving, where a user archives the page, but leaves out what he doesn't want visible in the archive, thus hiding the action underneath archiving. You-know-who did that, he's the only user I've seen push these limits. I addressed it by putting critical information in the edit summary, where it would remain visible, at least for a while. Experienced users, dealing with the disruptive, learn not to trust the archives as being complete. --Abd (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am very sorry Abd, thank you for trying to help me here, I remember from your talk page with Telecom, and didn't keep that in mind. thanks! --~ Golden_burg111 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are always welcome, Goldenburg, because you listen and learn. You need not always agree, but the more you listen, the more you will understand. --Abd (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --~ Golden_burg111 23:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have expanded Rajinikanth and Kamal Haasan substantially. In the process of improving Kolkata.--Nvvchar (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --~ Golden_burg111 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

About two months ago, a message was left on my talk page in regards to a 2009 comment made on my page. I am replying to this comment now:

It's obvious that you guys haven't stop, see meta:User:Goldenburg111/Reports/Wikiquote Vandalism Statics. --Golden_burg111 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do not appreciate being accused of actions that are not mine. I attempted to contact the vandal to make them stop; but no such luck, and that was back in 2009. They said they would continue this behavior but for no apparent reason except for the fact that they were bored. I am sick and tired of being accused of having anything to do with this idiot. Please in the future, refrain from mentioning me at all in any of these vandalism notations; I suggest you pull another checkuser on the few hundred or so names that I compiled which were harassing me at the time. I barely come here now, and that's a clear result of being harassed at a systematic basis by this very same user who is responsible for over 300 accounts. None of the admins did anything about this; but rather, neglected my plea and ignored the truth of the matter; I put forth many summaries notating all the instances where this user repeatedly vandalized my talk page, my contributions, and furthermore, my own user name by creating similar usernames and going about in a childish infantile behavior. - Zarbon (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zarbon, simmer down. I don't think Goldenburg intended to accuse you of anything, he just used "you guys" to refer to the vandal(s). He has been trying to help. Yes, vandalism can be irritating, but there is almost no way to completely prevent it, long-term. Saying that administrators do nothing simply isn't true. Your talk page was indefinitely semi-protected. YODO was blocked by a global sysop on request from Goldenburg. He's off the block now, but no new vandalism has appeared using that account. You are, here, complaining, but not pointing to anything specific other than Goldenburgs minor error. However, looking back, I find [3]. Many accounts have been blocked and locked. Claiming that a vandal is childish is completely useless. It just encourages them to vandalize more. See w:WP:RBI. That's about the best you can do.

Goldenburg, you mentioned the IP block exemption right in that discussion. I don't know if you have realized this, but this doesn't give the holder of the right to anything other than an immunity to IP blocks. I.e., say a user is using access that is included in some IP block or range-block, and it's hard block (not a soft block that only will block anonymous users). If this stops a legitimate user from editing, one if the possible solutions is to grant the blocked user "IP block exemption." There are no "IP block exemption-ers" except for any admin, who may grant that privilege. Only three Wikiquote users have this exemption, none are active, and one appears to have never been active. That account has only 5 edits cross-wiki, only to enwiki. I have my suspicion about what happened, but the granting user left almost no clue in the record. I hope you are well. --76.28.31.199 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

the vandals are already shaking in fear. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw the new vandal today being idiotic as usual haha fixed it up. So how has life been treating you? --~ Golden_burg111 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not bad, thanks for asking. Some interesting things will happen in the next couple of weeks, I'll keep you updated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply man waiting for some guests to come haha. Thanks BTW. --~ Golden_burg111 01:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article New Zealand, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have created the article on Colombo and also expanded Sri Lanka substantially. You may like to add more.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

gr8 --Golden_burg111 14:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

TY for erasing that anon's comments. I feel its one of 20spokesperson's socks. what a butthurt kid. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I hope the feud between you two will end soon! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't start it, but it will only end when he signs off WQ for good. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that many of the VFD discussions should be closed, as I am the one who opened them, they should be closed by another admin (see Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Closing_votes_and_deleting_articles, where it states: "To avoid conflict of interest, a sysop should never close a VfD that he or she started. However, a sysop may close a VfD in which he or she has voted."). ~ UDScott (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment. Technically, you are of course correct. However, I mean that every edit from that IP is vandalism. Were it an account and not an IP, I think I'd have given it a much longer block.--Abramsky (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the vandal fighting — I apologize for being "missing in action" — I literally dozed off a bit there — before posting the QOTD — and woke up a bit late to the mess that had gone on, in the relatively brief period of my doze. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kalki! It's fine. I'll be thinking about running for sysopship myself, since there seems to be a need here. Thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit: BBC One is the name of a TV channel. "BBC, one" just makes no sense. In this case, the correct channel name is actually "BBC1" since that's what it was called at the time. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Currently, one of your edits to the page Amitabh Bachchan shows the wrong size diff number because rev_parent_id is wrong.

• 19:32, 19 March 2014 shows (-5,970) when it should instead be showing (+41).

The linked proposal on Meta will fix rev_parent_id for the above edit to make the size diff number correct.

Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply