User talk:UDScott/2006

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archiving VFDs

Jeff - I was wondering about the archiving of closed votes. Moshe had asked me to handle some of the votes that closed over the last couple of weeks, which I did. But I'm a little unsure of how to do the next step (which you have recently done for some of them), which is to create the archive. I know that there is an input box to create an archive, but I still wasn't quite sure how to do it -- do I remove the information from the VFD page and paste it on the archive page? Sorry for asking what may be a dumb question, but I wasn't really sure how to proceed.
P.S. Loved your exchange with 0waldo. It had me rolling. ~ UDScott 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad something positive is coming out of the 0waldo exchange, if only amusement.

Questions about VfD archiving are far from dumb. It's become a rather cumbersome process, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. One of my highest-priority to-dos is to update the documentation in Wikiquote:Deletion policy, but I'm still recovery from my major computer failure problem last month, and I'm severely backlogged in both the real and cyber worlds. (I've mostly limited my wiki work to quick in-and-out edits of late.) It took me a week to muster the strength to clean up the 27 (!) old votes, so I have a fresh perspective of how to close and archive efficiently, but I'm afraid it'll take me at least until next week to tackle this issue. (Documentation is much harder to do properly than the actual work being documented.)

The basic process is this:

  1. Copy the entire VFD entry (including the linked heading) into a new VFDA subpage using the inputbox.
  2. Add a templated entry in the appropriate place on WQ:VFDA.
  3. Remove the VFD entry from WQ:VFD.
    This covers just the archiving of the entry. It's assumed that someone has already closed the vote and deleted the page if appropriate. If the page is kept (or redirected or moved), a fourth step is necessary:
  4. Go to the original page's discussion page and add a {{vfd-kept|Title of kept page}} tag to it.
    For moves and redirects, make sure you go back to the original page under review, not the page to which it's redirected or moved. This last step should be done after archiving because it allows you to verify the link shown in the vfd-kept notice.

Here are the details of how to actually execute steps 1-3 above. Feel free to ask questions if anything is unclear or not useful. First, a couple of notes:

  • It's best to use a browser that makes it easy to switch between multiple windows. Firefox and Opera provide tabs for a 1-click switch; under Windows, other browsers can usually switch windows by pressing Alt-Tab to cycle through open applications.
  • I highly recommend doing one entry at a time when learning the archive process. Once you get the hang of it, it's possible to save time by doing different steps in bulk, but the potential for messing up is considerable, even for old hands (as I found out several times yesterday during the safety checks I mention below).

Okay, now the steps:

  1. Copy the entire VFD entry.
    1. Open 2 browser tabs/windows: one with WQ:VFD, and one with the page including the inputbox. (I don't recall where else the inputbox may be, but until there's one in the official policy pages, you're welcome to use mine at User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts. It may require a widescreen display to look right, but you can always add a similar box to your own user pages to suit your needs.)
    2. On WQ:VFD, jump to the entry to archive. Copy the title text, switch to the inputbox window, and paste the title in the box just after "Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/". Clicking on the "Create VFD archive page" button will then create the archive subpage, with a {{vfd-archive}} tag already added to the top.
    3. Switch back to the VFD tab/window. Open a third window to edit the VFD entry section alone. (This can usually be done either with a Shift-Click or Ctl-Click on the VFD entry's "edit" link, or by right-clicking and selecting "open in new tab" or "new window".) Select and copy the entire contents of the edit section (the sequence Ctl-A, Ctl-C will do this in Windows). Switch to the new subpage window and paste this entire entry after the "vfd-archive" tag. Add something like "created VFD archive page" to the edit summary. Preview your edit (to make sure the title matches the entry text, a good safety check) and then save it.
    4. Close the section-edit tab or window.
  2. Add the entry to WQ:VFDA.
    1. In the new VFD entry subpage, select and copy the entry title (the part without the "WQ:VFDA/" prefix); you'll need to paste this in a minute. You'll see a link, just under the title, back to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive. Click on this.
    2. After this extraordinarily long page finally completes loading, find the section in which to place this entry. Currently, all Kept (or Moved or Redirected) articles are in a single Kept section, all Deleted pages and images have their own sections, and everything else is broken into alphabetical groupings by the first character in the title. (We treat "A", "An", and "The" as significant for this purpose to make it easier on our beleaguered brains.) Edit the appropriate section and insert the following text between the appropriate VFD entries or templates:
      {{/Title of deleted article}}
    3. Add something like "+Title" or "archived Title" to the edit summary (very important for examining VFDA history!). Preview the edit to make sure the title appears in the table of contents where you expect it to. (This is another safety check: if the subpage didn't save properly, or the title is misspelled, your archived title will not show up in the TOC.) Click on the TOC link to jump to the VFD entry to verify it appears as it should, then save your edit.
  3. Remove the VFD entry from WQ:VFD.
    1. After you've completed and verified this archiving, only then should you switch to the VFD page and remove the entry. Again, it's important to add something like "archived Title" to the edit summary before saving.

After all this, you have archived one VFD entry. (Whew!) You should be left with a VFD window and a VFDA window. You will probably find it useful to bookmark the inputbox page, so that you can reuse the VFDA window by clicking on your bookmark, which will leave you exactly where you were at Step 1, ready for the next archive task.

If this hasn't scared you off of archiving VFD entries, nothing will. If you're still in the game, you may find complications, like where to locate odd entries on the VFDA page, what if there's already an article with this title, what if you edit a supposedly new VFDA subpage and it comes up with an existing page, etc. Feel free to punt and ask for help if any problems arise. We can fix anything that goes wrong, short of a catastrophic database failure (which is beyond our control anyway). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


UDScott, do you want to try your hand at archiving a VfD now? We're getting a bit backlogged again, but I don't want to steal from you the opportunity to try this, unless you're not in the mood to give it a shot yet. Let me know. ~ Jeffq 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Jeff, thanks for the help. After some initial fumbling, I believe I've got it down now. Thanks again. ~ UDScott 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

HELP!

UD and Moshe are the only real good editers no offense but could you help me??? -- 169.244.143.115 18:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

~ signature added on 15:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) by Jeffq, apparently one of the "real bad editers" [sic]

barg from 0waldo

Comic books! Dinosaur comic books? Latest passion? Certainly you jest (pardon the pun) comic - jest... Get it? Naaaa - I know. Anyone! from near Rahway could not get it - too complex, but don’t know, the God father is ok after you watch it one million times because then, only then will one realize that Chubs Brando, King Fatso had his cheeks stuffed with cotton and drank a gallon of drain-Oh so he would have a scratchy voice! Blocked for what? Continual disruptive editing! Sounds like some leaky pustule boil erupting forth or something close to it. Adding a legitimate quote page is continual disruptive editing? No. Not. Nice try. :) Hugs! 0Waldo.

Category links

I corrected your WQ:VFD link for Category:Natives of Cornwall. Note the difference:

  • wrong: Category:[[Natives of Cornwall]]
  • right: [[:Category:Natives of Cornwall]]

I think I can see how you might have misunderstood where to put the prefacing colon and the brackets. Do you recall where you read how to create clickable category links? I suspect the explanation could use some clarification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Jeff, no I don't recall actually. I just took a guess; I wasn't sure how to display that -- in the first pass, I actually managed to add the WQ:VFD to the category. Thanks for the help. By the way, I guess I managed to put myself on the bad side of 0waldo, so you have some company there. :-) ~ UDScott 17:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I only just realized that it was Jamorama, not you, who added the not-quite-right link brackets. My apologies. I've posted a note to him on the correct syntax. Sorry for the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

InsaneBastardsMonkeys

  • UD Insane is a little Insane today so leave him alone i'am backing him up to make quotes... you helped with bjork and dido so good. --3kings 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon vs. unsigned VfD votes

I noticed you striking some anonymous votes out on WQ:VFD. I might make a distinction between anonymous votes, which are controversial (and currently under consideration for being dismissed in the draft Wikiquote:Voting policy, I think), and unsigned votes, which the VfD instructions clearly state are not accepted. I think we typically strike votes because they're unsigned, not because they're anonymous. (Aphaia at least may disagree with me on this.) I suggest this as a way to be on absolutely solid ground in striking votes, especially since anons almost never sign votes anyway. Just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Jeff, I'd be happy to follow whichever convention is appropriate. I was following what I had seen Moshe do actually -- for example for Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Denis Leary. I also admit that I'm losing patience with this user (both when he is signed in or out) and that probaly fueled my actions. I'll follow whatever is the consensus though. Thanks. ~ UDScott 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, I'd missed that striking by Moshe. (That was during my dead-laptop crisis; I missed quite a few VfDs then.) I'll bring that up with him as well. However, I'm not speaking from authority here, as suggested by my conditional words above. Although we must ultimately follow Wikimedia Foundation practices and official policy within our own project, for a project like Wikiquote which is still growing, the reality is that the most active editors often guide the interpretation of policy. Moshe has certainly been our most active editor for a while, and you are rapidly catching up with him. With only a draft WQ voting policy, no formal WQ policy statement on anon voting, and parent Wikipedia's practice (I'm not sure how it's phrased in policy) of treating anon voting as having little or no weight, there seems to me to be room to make this interpretation stick. I don't think I can claim any consensus on the issue, one way or another. So consider this only my opinion. My preference is chiefly to avoid the potential for troublesome editors to take advantage of our informality by calling us on our own policies (or lack thereof). In that regard, striking unsigned votes is not controversial. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

VfD minimum vote times

Might I ask our most enthusiastic culler of questionable articles to make sure about providing a full 14 days minimum for each VfD nomination? Since we have readers around the world, it's more important that 14 days be a full 336 hours than it is to provide the same closure time for each vote. (I, and Moshe too, I think, typically pick a time several hours beyond the current time to give some room to add more entries before a day's cutoff; e.g., set a "rendezvous" of 20:00 UTC if one starts adding entries around 12:00 UTC. If it's late in the UTC day, just set the time for next day. 14 days is only a minimum.) We don't want any VfD readers to feel they have only 13 periods of whatever daily WQ activity time they have to consider a nomination, just because they're in the wrong timezone. Thanks, and sorry for the plethora of "helpful" suggestions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Veronica Mars edits

I notice that you've been reverting some substantial deletions from Veronica Mars made by 69.251.215.168, and ultimately posted a request for them not to "vandalize pages". Although it's generally bad form for an editor to delete large amounts of text without explanation on the talk page, it's not really vandalism if it's as selective as these edits were. MosheZadka, probably the article's chief maintainer, even suggested back in November 2005 that some trimming of this huge article might be in order, so this anon may have been taking him up on it. I've asked the anon to discuss further such edits at Talk:Veronica Mars, and suggest you participate as well if you wish. (If you were just countering suspected vandalism, you don't need to get involved in the issue unless you want to.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with a user who is editing in bad faith?

Hi, Sorry to bug you, but I see that you've warned Mr. Grace about policy violations before, and he is continuing to be a disruptive editor. I wrote the following on MosheZadka's talk page, but MosheZadka hasn't made any edits in a few weeks and probably hasn't seen it:

Essentially, the user is unilaterally reverting many changes: he reverted an attempt to reorganize the page in a more NPOV way, without discussing it on the talk page, and then insisted that the existing organization of the page was "the result of consensus" (when there was no such consensus) [1]; removed a pro-choice quotation for being from a "non-notable" person [2]; and insists on including POV commentary about quotations [3]. Without definite policies on Wikiquote about this kind of behavior, it's hard for me to know what should be done, but it seems that in the absence of formal policies, then I'm forced to either get into an edit war with him or ignore the article and let him do what he wants with it, neither of which is desirable. Any suggestions? Thanks, Catamorphism 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Grace is continuing to act in a possessive manner towards this page, reverting edits by both myself and other editors that interfere with his POV-pushing. I'm just not sure what to do about this situation; it seems like it's going to be a continual revert war until this guy gets blocked or gets tired of it. Catamorphism 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop plotting and making threats - you make it seem as if the world will fall apart if you don't overpower Mr. Grace into submission. The abortion page has plenty of quotes from many perspectives - and many are very thought provoking and surprising. I always encourage editors to add abortion related quotes. And I have supported the removal of some editorial commentary that seemed unnecessary (and have not supported deleting explnatory notes that simply clarify verifiable facts that place the quote in context). I have ojected to adding quotes that are not directly related to abortion. I have objected to shortening a quote and thereby removing important context. And I have objected to an arbitrary restructuring of the page after reviweing the talk page archives and the edit archives and realizing that the debate will be endless if anything but the simplest of categories is employed (as is now the case). None of this behavior is vandalism or anything but the work of an editor who wants this page to be a useful source of quotes about abortion. Mr. Grace

Concrete Hippo

Why do you think Concrete Hippo was deleted on Wikipedia? Are you going by the "From Wikipedia" blurb at the top of the article? Are you a sysop there who can see deleted articles? I'd like to know because I'm thinking about nominating the WP article for deletion, which is unnecessary if it's already been done once, and I didn't find a w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concrete Hippo or other expected variations. (I've never bothered to ask for sysop status on WP, so I can't check the direct way.) ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Jeff, of course this no longer matters, since I see that you've started an AFD discussion on this topic on WP, but I thought that I had found something when I was searching for it on Google. Of course, I can now no longer retrace my steps. In any case, I think the discussion that has ensued on WP is valid and I still think the page here should be deleted. Especially, since (as I said before), that valid or not as a WP page, how in the world can a statue talk and thus provide quotes? Now, if there were valid quotes about said statue, I might be inclined to let them stand, but I highly doubt that they exist. ~ UDScott 13:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote updates?

Hello UDScott, would you be interested in making occasional reports on what Wikiquoters and the project are doing? Perhaps a short blurb every couple of weeks... Let me know :) Sj 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Jeff, is there any way to determine a user's IP address? I ask because I'm fairly sure that the new user Mudwomps is the same person that we have blocked in the past for adding nearly useless pages, expecting other editors to fix them for him. I've done so for a number of them today, but I'm a little tired of being bogged down by it. At the same time, I don't wish to see wq be filled with sloppy pages such as he is creating. ~ UDScott 17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to use the CheckUser process to determine who a user is, but usage is extremely limited. I doubt anything that has happened on Wikiquote in my time has gone through enough of the required negotiation with disruptive users before a user check is approved. However, I have unilaterally blocked Mudwomps for 1 week for disruption. Such blocks are inherently controversial, so I've posted a note to their talk page about how to protest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work, Jeff. I had wanted to block this user, and it's obvious that he is the same user that had submitted ridiculous articles in the past (and eventually been blocked for it). I was looking for a way to link his history with that from before so that I could block without having to go through the gradual warnings. The problem as I see it is that some of these problem users could simply keep changing their logins and continue to disrupt. The CheckUser feature seems like it would help (also in the case of 0Waldo), but I don't know the ends and out of it. ~ UDScott 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong vandal

You calim I vandalize Wikiquote, yet this is my first edit, right here. I used Wikiquote ONCE to cneck a Dickens quote. Sorry for the mix-up. 66.82.9.49

An editor using this IP address vandalized the article on The Bible, as its edit history [4] clearly shows. I'm sure that is what UDScott was referring to. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am the only user at this IP... What happened? 66.82.9.49

Found out the prblem. My ISP rotates about a lot of IPs around all of it's users. eg.Dynamic IP. 69.19.14.38

The Antiquary

Hi there, have left a message for you on Talk:Walter Scott. Cheers, JackyR 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not that I'm against offering explanatory text surrounding a quote, but I'd be apt to try to reign in the formatting of it a bit from your original. I would think we could accomodate both our wishes by compromising. Can we try to adhere to conventional WQ formatting, yet still retain your introductory text? ~ UDScott 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    •  :I'll have a go. Posted that on the article talk page in case anyone follows and reverts one or other of the changes, but I guess it's not high-risk! :-) JackyR 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ward Cunningham

Wow! that was an amazingly fast clean-up of my very rough addition of a single Ward Cunningham quote. I admit I was being lazy but it's pretty late where I am. Really appreciate your edit. Oska 12:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem! I tend to do a quick run through of all new pages when I first log on in the morning - just to clean up where it's needed or to tag them appropriately. Cheers! ~ UDScott 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

South Park

  • I replied. Savidan 20:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just transwiki-ing them from Wikipedia. You could consolidate them all into one article if you want but it would be extremely long. Probably a single article which had key quotes from each character and an organization of links to each episode (or season) would be better. If they get merged, please make sure the redirects are sharpened so that people clicking on the links from wikipedia get right to the quotes about that episode. Savidan 20:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows, you'll see that the accepted way to present quotes from a TV show is to have the episode quotes all on one page. Yes, this can get quite large. But that's the way that all other pages for TV shows are. For shows that have many seasons, sometimes a special table of contents is created (see Buffy the Vampire Slayer for an example). Also, when the quotes are gathered onto one page, they are still grouped by episode, rather than by character. ~ UDScott 13:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi UDScott, thank you for supporting my RfA! I look forward to working with you and the rest of the sysops here. -- Robert 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the support of my RfA. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and am looking forward to helping out as a sysop. —LrdChaos 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a Jerk

What is the definition of quote? Does someone have to be famous to be quoted? MegaloManiac 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. In order to be included here, they should be notable. I quote from the Wikiquote:Wikiquote page: Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. That's why I kept removing your quote from the Religious page. It's not from a notable person. If you would like to add it to your user page, feel free. And please don't stoop to calling me names just because I'm enforcing the guidelines of the site. ~ UDScott 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That was fast. Usualy I have to wait all week to get a response. Any ways It appears you are right. I am sorry and whatever. MegaloManiac 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and just incase you are wondering Dustin Brobston is the priest at my church. MegaloManiac 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comics

Thanks for the cleanup. Steve block 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting VFD votes

Rather than delete a forged vote on WQ:VFD, as you did with Auraschild's "JJ aka ShadowZero" vote, I recommend you add to it the {{unsigned2}} template to indicate both the ID and timestamp of the vote. It's important for VfD participants to note users' attempts to forge votes. ("unsigned2" is preferable to {{unsigned}} because it includes the timestamp, which can be very important in untangling multiple edits. Its parameters (time|username) make it easy to copy the history-page time/username line into the template, adding only a pipe (|) between the two, although one should adjust the time to UTC by adding or subtracting the hour difference from one's timezone and possibly adjust the date. [Surest way to do this is to temporarily change one's date/time preferences to UTC (0 offset) and reload the history.]) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for voting to make me a sysop. I hope I will prove worthy of the trust that has been placed in me. Best wishes, InvisibleSun 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Bride

Jeff, I saw your reversion of the spelling change to Inigo's name, and while I do understand that both WP and IMDB spell it this way, I did want to point out that when he says his name (in his famous line about killing his father), he does pronounce it "Inyeego", even though Fezzik pronounces it more like In-i-go; hence my change. But I'm certainly willing to let it go as is. ~ UDScott 13:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have the film in front of me, so I can't confirm. But perhaps a better resolution might come from checking the novel, which presumably would have the definitive spelling. I'll be at my local library in a few hours, so I'll check it out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked a library copy and found it written as "Inigo" there as well. I've added a note to Talk:The Princess Bride to alert future editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Philip Schaff on Luther Bible

This material is in public domain, so there cannot be a copyvio here.--Drboisclair 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Barbarella cleanup

I'm not clear on why you tagged Barbarella for cleanup. I did notice that the "Dialogue" section was titled "Quotes" and that the IMDb link was broken, but the page seemed otherwise well-formed. (I fixed those things, as well as changing HTML character entities to UTF-8 characters.) If I missed something, please let me know, as I've removed the cleanup tag. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I see you changed back a few of the things I had done to this page. I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I am a bit confused by a couple of things. Some of the lines you moved back to the Dialogue section are lines from a single character (and as such would seem to be more appropriate for individual quotes in the appropriate section, above the dialogue). Also, some of what you did does not seem to follow the film template. Your change of the quote by Pygar (in the Others section) doesn't seem to be the way films are done, with the attribution after the quote, rather than before it. Also, your italicizing of the character names in the Cast section is new to me. And I also thought that we tried to include a category for the decade a film fits into (which you removed). In the end, as I said, I don't really care, but I wanted to verify your changes, which seem to be different from what other film pages are doing (and what I have been doing with film pages). These are certainly small matters, but I know you share my desire to work out the details and sometimes to sweat the small stuff. ~ UDScott 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I had started an explanation earlier of what I had done and why, but dumped it out of sheer apathy. (I've been suffering from this disease for a while now.) But you certainly deserve an explanation for my actions. To sum up:

  • The loss of the year category was a simple error, which I've rectified.
  • I also failed to notice the italicization in the cast section. I have no idea why I did that when I created the article! Now that you've pointed out this oddity, I've reapplied your fix.
  • My passion for sourcing makes me want to include everything in Dialogue as an approximation of page-number use for books. (This also requires quotes to be in chronological order, as I always argue.) I've thought about recommending timecodes as source information, but I keep bumping up against my own sense of what the community can be expected to do, and film and TV show articles are already the hardest ones to do correctly. I haven't objected to solo quotes under character headings, but if one or the other should be sacrificed, I say the solo ones should go, because sourcing (and the subsequent ease of verification) is what differentiates Wikiquote from other quote websites. Some modest duplication (without advertising it) seems a reasonable middle course.
  • Wikiquote:Templates/Films and Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows were largely created by User:MosheZadka during a flurry of policy work. (I created the individual template pages, but only by copying Moshe's work from Wikiquote:Templates.) These formatting guidelines were based on existing formats that I had pushed for over a year ago and implemented on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Mystery Science Theater 3000. (Those formatting rules themselves were determined in a dialog largely between myself and User:Jeandré, which I'm afraid went mostly my way after Jeandré faded from the scene. To this day, I feel guilty about reformatting Firefly, which he created and effectively introduced me to.) At that time of Moshe's work, there was no single way to do things. Moshe wanted to formalize my Buffy practice, the 2-4 other active editors at the time went along, so he did so. (That's the way WQ often goes, as you know.) I didn't say much about little things at the time, because it's hard enough to change policy here, and I was busy with VFD reform (which still isn't done). But for the aforementioned sourcing reason, I never agreed with including dialog-like formatting (which is already complicated) in the solo-quote section. (If a quote's value is in dialog exchange, it belongs in Dialogue.) We have another standard for unsourced solo quotes that is much more widespread — the very simple, very obvious "quote ~ quotee" form. It's not needed for solo quotes from characters with enough material to rate their own heading. The alternative "* quote / ** source" format seems needlessly complex if all it does is supply the quotee. Therefore, I went with the more recognized form for "Others".
  • Ultimately, I strongly believe that the focus of these articles should be on the dialog, with only pithiest, most memorable solo quotes listed outside of Dialogue for emphasis. There should also be little, or better yet, no stage directions or contexts, as they should not be needed for the pithiest quotes. One of the benefits of the annoyingly complex dialog formatting is that it can more easily accomodate these things if necessary.

I can be a bear about these small matters, but I've seen many experiments tried over the past 2 years, and my head is full of observed but unwritten (or written in too many scattered places) consequences of these variations. I wish I could summon the energy to write all this stuff up in a single place, but even if I did, I'm afraid it would be so ponderous that it might stifle productive alternatives and simply frustrate people who are trying to learn "the system". I'm really hoping that community participation here will grow so much that my voice will become a much smaller one on these issues. I guess what I'm saying in my meandering way is that you and everyone should feel free to fight back on these issues, when you think that they are important. But I also don't want to be too locked into templates and policies that were created by one or two people at a time, most of whom aren't even actively editing anymore. Until we get much more general participation, most of these practices simply reflect the strong opinions of a single editor, and I'm one of the guiltiest in this. (And if you think this was a ponderous explanation, you should try reading the volumes of commentary I've made in the past 2 years on many of these individual formatting issues, across the talk pages of many article, policy, draft, user, and experimental pages. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon

You downgraded all the quotes to "attributed". I knew in the back of my head that somebody would do that eventually. I put an external link in the article providing videographic proof that he actually said all of those things. Is that enough? I'm seriously asking. I don't actually know much about wikiquote. ~ Savidan 17:20, 2 June 2006

What "attributed" means is that the source of the quote is not known. In fact, there is a movement to replace this designation with "unsourced" on most pages. But what I mean by not having the source known is that for most quotes to qualify as "sourced" you need a definite, verifiable source (e.g. a specific book & chapter, or a date and title of a speech, etc.) In the case of these quotes by Jeff Gannon probably all that is needed is the date that the words were said by Gannon. ~ UDScott 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
UDScott, I would disagree with your assessment. A date is not a source, as it provides no direct citation of a quote. While a date may suffice for publications that have editorial boards, Wikimedia projects have no such professional scrutiny of evidence or professional reputation to stake on editorial decisions, so we editors are expected to point to material from sources that do. I've even been trying to encourage editors contributing quotes from famous historical speeches to cite a publication or wiki-reliable website for these speeches, as they are just as vulnerable to the "telephone game" as anything else. If we need them for famous speeches, we certainly need them for modern quotees, and there is no excuse not to cite reliable sources for a reporter from a 21st-century web-based publication. I would expect that Talon News itself could provide these. (Of course, Wikiquote is in a far-from-ideal state on this issue in many articles, but that's all the more reason never to pass up a chance to reinforce the Wikimedia principle of citing sources.) I note that Savidan is primarily a Wikipedia editor, so this will probably make sense to him, anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical Squrrel Army

Jeff, what are your thoughts on the The Mechanical Squirrel Army page? It seems to me we had had some discussions in the past about these types of pages, and the fact that the quotes contained therein were not notable enough for inclusion. I was reluctant to flag the page until discussing the precedence for such a move with you. My instinct is that it should be deleted, or moved to a user's page. Your thoughts? ~ UDScott 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first question is, "What the hell is 'The Mechanical Squirrel Army'?" The quote article hardly makes this clear. It says it's "a guild in the Blizzard MMORPG World of Warcraft", but is this an element of a computer game, or is it a social organization of game players? Or is there one of each? The next step is to go to Wikipedia for clarification. No article, no results looking for "Mechanical Squirrel Army" with WP's search. This, in my opinion, already justifies a VfD nomination, if for no other reason than to get the creator to produce some meaningful information and notability evidence. (If they create a WP article in response to our noting its absence, which, in my experience, pratically never happens, we can AfD-nominate it there to get a truly large editing community to examine the question. As they make decisions in 5 days instead of 2 weeks, we can get the results before our VfD closes — very convenient.) My Google check suggests that the most prominent aspect of "TMSA" is the real-world organization and/or its discussion board, which would make it nothing more than a bunch of unnotables quoting themselves from a wiki-unreliable source, confirming it as non-WQ material. (I imagine that's what took you in the direction of moving it to a user's page, presumably Mentorjr (talk · contributions) or Krazyman (talk · contributions).) Anyway, those are my thoughts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for posting about The Oblongs page. I know my formatting is crappy and I'm sure it's the reason for my grammer. I will try a better to add commas and all that good stuff. ~ Paranoid1

Availability

I will be extremely tied up with a work project during the month of August '06'…

Ouch! I'm already missing your good work. Good luck on your project! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discounted VfD votes

Please don't be offended by my discounting two of your three votes on the 10 August closures as being late. (I extended Petrolheads for a couple of reasons, rendering the question moot for that article.) I prefer to be scrupulous about following our policies, so we won't have any lapses held against us by clever vanity editors. I realize you're preoccupied with other stuff, though, and appreciate the time you were able to take to make your recent votes. I hope your real-world stuff is going well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem Jeff. I didn't really pay close attention to the times of the vote closures. I was able to squeeze in a little time and wanted to contribute as best as I could. I've got a little break for a few days, but then I'll be MIA again for a few weeks. ~ UDScott 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University VFD

I think you need to reconsider your Votes for deletion nomination of the Rutgers University Wikiquote article Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Rutgers_University, first re-reading the Wikiquote:Wikiquote article and realizing that LrdChaos jumped the gun by VfDing a page only minutes after it was started with no consideration that a.) it was a work in progress, and b.) it will be more than it appears, and c.) sometimes things interfere with the quick completion of one's work. —ExplorerCDT 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your edits to the Hamid Dabashi article. I am still new to all this, at Wikiquote that is. Best regards, Gidonb 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Television shows

Jeff, I have a question for you: although the current TV show template does not contain it, it seems that we have traditionally included a show's cast on its page (as we do for films). But in recent edits to Prison Break, the cast section has been removed (I recently restored it). Do you a) see value in having the cast included (as I do); and b) if you do, should the template be updated accordingly? There are numerous TV show pages with the cast section included, but there really isn't any official sanctioning of this. I wanted to get your opinion before engaging the editor that removed the section from the Prison Break page. Thanks. ~ UDScott 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall a specific discussion on this, but I believe the reason we hadn't added a cast list to TV shows was that the TV shows we were working on last year tended to have characters with Wikipedia articles, allowing the use of character links, which indirectly provided this information. Of course, many TV shows won't (and probably shouldn't) be in this situation, and it is quite logical to have the actors' names specifically listed somewhere in the article. I recommend adding the "Cast" section from Wikiquote:Templates/Films to the same position in Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows (perhaps with the heading "Regular cast", or perhaps just as-is). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this is a good a talk page as any for the discussion. I wasn't around when the current templates were drawn up, so I'm not familiar with the reasoning behind certain decisions, but I've never really understood why we included a "Cast" section for film articles. It's not quote material, nor is it generally important toward understanding the film/show or the quotes (and if the point of a quote is locked up in the actor saying it, perhaps it's not that appropriate).
With TV shows, it seems like there would need to be a method for organizing/grouping cast members; while some shows keep the same major cast for their whole run, others have turnover and have major cast members in and out (e.g., ER, Law & Order). How would cast members for that be listed? All in one list (with or without seasons), two lists ("Active cast", "Former cast"; this distinction doesn't work so well for shows that have ended their run)? Another section for recurring characters? This seems like it could get to be rather long (and, looking at the cast section for Without a Trace, already has: it's a screen and a half on my 1024x768 laptop). At least it's at the bottom and not an impediment to reading the page.
It seems like extra work (creating/maintaining the section) for little gain, since it doesn't contribute any quote material to the page, nor does it make navigation easier like a custom TOC. Perhaps I've just missed the point of having a Cast section in the first place. —LrdChaos 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that it is not always obvious that there is a need for a cast section, I do find that it provides a simple place to find full names for characters (while leaving just a first or last name in the quote sections).
As to the dilemma of long cast lists, I guess I don't see the problem (but I don't necessarily feel so strongly about it to fight consensus on the issue). As for cast turnover, I would simply list the seasons next to the actor, if they were not present during the whole run of the show.
I've just always liked having the cast listed, so I didn't have to go elsewhere for it, but it's really just a personal preference. If there are strong feelings that they are not needed, I will defer. But this also brings up the point that if you go by this logic, then anything that is not a quote should not be included -- this would rule out much of the links section as well. ~ UDScott 17:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Hi. I don't mean to be mean or anything because I hate removing someone else's work but I do not think the "cast" section should be in Prison Break or any other television shows' Wikiquote articles since the purpose of these articles are to provide quotes and not other information about the show. -- Ladida 06:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with anyone either, but I have restored the cast section to Prison Break once again. There has been an ongoing dialogue about this issue, but as of now, the cast section is included in the TV show template. If you would like to argue the point, feel free (there's some discussion on my Talk page already, or you can do it on the Template's talk page as well). For now, please leave the cast on the page, until or unless the argument is settled without its inclusion in the template. Thanks. ~ UDScott 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on this posting and #Television shows above, it looks like we should have a new community discussion about this, perhaps over at Wikiquote talk:Templates/TV shows. Personally, I hope we can defer it a few weeks during this maintenance-intensive period, but I'd suggest that folks who aren't happy with this practice might want to start a discussion there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I think I might be starting to annoy you now. Sorry. :( I reduced the cast section in Prison Break so that it would only contain the main cast and not the recurring cast. The recurring cast list isn't really complete anyway and none of the quotes actually belonged to any of those characters. All the quotes originated from the main characters, which renders the recurring cast section useless (in a way). Also, the cast list was so long that it's taking up much of the space of the article. Regards, Ladida 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as we're pestering UDScott about this, I'll add that, in films, I usually only add the cast that is quoted. I'm not sure how well that would translate into TV, and I don't think we have any policy or clear practice even for films on who to include (although I'd strongly reject a complete inclusion of IMDb's cast list to avoid potential copyright problems), but that's just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The Homework Diary Company Ltd

I noticed that you are supporting the deletion of the above article, and of a few affiliated articles. I have given some information on the deletion page, and, after seeing your user page, thought that you might be interested in a project to try and find sources for these quotes. Please see the deletion page for more information. Also, please read this notice which I placed at the reference desk. -- R160K 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Heroes

Don't worry, you didn't step on any toes! I'm pretty much a n00b here, and judging from your user page you clearly have more experience with this than I do, so I appreciate you pointing that out to me. After checking some other page's you've worked on, I can see that I made some other n00b edits, that I'll try and correct at the moment. —This unsigned comment is by ModernTenshi04 (talkcontribs) .

No problem! I just wanted to fix these minor glitches. If you have any questions or need any help, let me know -- I'll be hapy to help. ~ UDScott 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deal Or No Deal

UDScott can you format my enteries? --169.244.143.119 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali (film)

I've just nominated this page for deletion. I hadn't checked the "quotes" part of its IMDB page before I put the cleanup tags on it, so I didn't notice that the content was just copied from there. Thanks for the heads up on that. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

I would like to tell you that wikiquote:Esperanza is not like the Esperanza on wikipedia. The goal of the Esperanza on wikipedia is to make the sense of community better while the Esperanza on wikiquote's mission is to make wikiquote a more friendly place, to fight vandalism and keep it from becoming a problem here, and to make the number of articles here grow and improve the quality of them. Another thing I would like to tell you is that all I am is the interm president, I am not making this so I can have power but to make wikiquote better all around. Have a nice week.--Sir James Paul 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • That may be all well and good, but I still do not see the point of having something like this. Rather than spending a lot of time talking, voting, and creating charter and goals, why not actually perform some edits, cleanup, or vandalism reversion? I don't see the need to create an artificial group just to do what any good editor would do anyway. It's nothing personal against you, I just don't see the value. ~ UDScott 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The charter of Esperanza is already done and so are the goal, so members will not have to make these things, and we have voting every other month. The members will have just as much time to edit. Esperanza will have awards for members who revert vandalism, for working hard, for being friendly, and will reward a article that we think is really good. By doing this we will incourage hard work, reverting vandalism, makind good articles, and being friendly. If we have members doing these things than it will help th article a lot. God bless.--Sir James Paul 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw

You posted the following Shaw quotation as one of your favorites: "You see things and you say 'why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?'"

It was originally used in "Back to Methuselah" in 1921, but has (I believe) appeared in a movie more recently.

If you have any idea what movie that was, could you please e-mail me: juliosuave@msn.

Thanks!


Nevermind. I figured it out.

I first heard a variation of the quote in Tom Clay's song "What the World Needs Now," which reflects on the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The song had an actual quote from the eulogy that Senator Edward Kennedy gave at his brother, Bobby's funeral on June 8, 1968:

"Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. That is the way he lived. That is what he leaves us.

My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life... to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Those of us, who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: 'Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.'"

GOD Bless! ~ —This unsigned comment is by 71.76.236.35 (talkcontribs) .

Why'd you de-Wikify the year in "Francine Prose" in Wikiquote?

I was curious why you changed the year of her birth from being a Wikipedia reference to being just text. Personally, I find the Wikifying of every mention of a year in 'pedia and 'quote to be peculiar, but it does seem to be the "standard," and was done on every 'quote page I looked at as models before creating this one. Eric Albert 07:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I think it was simply an oversight. I don't really have a problem with the wikifying of dates, but there really doesn't seem to be a standard way of doing it. The people template does not include it, and I've seen various formats for it. I generally don't use them, so that's probably why I did it here. I just meant to add that she was born in 1947, rather than just have the year there by itself. ~ UDScott 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Artillery

Wow, you're quick. Thanks for the improvments on the Artillery page. As I am fairly new to wikiquote, I have a question for you. Is it preferable to link to a wikiquote page or a wikipedia page for the individuals making the quotes? For example should the Patton quote link to George_S._Patton or George_S._Patton? Cheers. L0b0t 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, if the person in question has a page on wikiquote, we link to that. If they do not (and it is not likely that they ever will, it's fine to link to wikipedia). But if it seems likely that they may someday have a page on wikiquote (in other words if it seems likely that the person has said enough notable things, and enough valid sourced quotes could eventually be placed on a page), we usually link to a wikiquote page, even if that page does not yet exist. Often, the red links on a theme page inspire others to go and create that page. ~ UDScott 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of people names

I was curious as to why you reverted all the work I had done to repair the red-linked names on the list. I had corrected misspelled names (Laveter -> Lavater, James Fennimore Cooper -> James Fenimore Cooper, Pierre Corniel -> Pierre Corneille); had created separate links for William Pitt the Elder and Younger instead of the one red link for William Pitt; and created parenthetical additions to titles, e.g., Robert Herrick -> Robert Herrick (poet) to match the article titles. - InvisibleSun 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OOps, sorry about that! I didn't realize I had done that. I was just looking at what you had done, and must have hit the wrong link. I appreciate you doing the corrections. ~ UDScott 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Adi Mehta

Why did you delete the page on Adi Mehta, just because I was the only contributor? Just because you haven't heard of this great Indian poet does not give you the right to delete that page.

- Jabunga

The above post was made by Jabunga at 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If I might jump in here, I would suggest the speedy deletion of Adi mehta had something to do with the article's complete lack of sources and self-assertion that the subject was not notable (i.e., "He has acquired little fame outside his state of Orissa, India"). However, I am also curious about a possibly related deletion of wikipedia:Adi Mehta about this time last year on Wikipedia: [5]
nn bio content was: 'Adi Mehta is a small time cave explorer in Central America. He has caved in most of the big caves of Latin America and is currrently writing a book on...' (and the only contributor was 'Crowbaaa')
Is this just a coincidence, or is there some connection? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to what Jeff wrote, my reason for the speedy deletion was for non notability of the subject (as stated on the page, this person is not well known). ~ UDScott 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)