Wikiquote:Village pump

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

2010 section?

I've noticed that there's absolutely nothing regarding QOTD's in 2010. Going to the QOTM archive gives me links to recommend quotes, going to the entire archive stops abruptly at December 31. Seeing as we're already a week in to the new decade, I'd like to ask whether anybody's working to fix this? Insaeno 04:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In what used to be my daily habitual activity, I would update these pages, and still intend to do so, but as I now tend to work on QOTD selections a few times a week rather than every day, doing QOTD work takes up larger blocks of my time, and I have neglected to update these pages since early last month. I will be busy much of today, but will try to get things fully updated here here within the next day or so. Previously, even when I wasn't active in editing pages I would usually check in here several times a day, but no longer having admin tools, the reasons for my doing this have largely vanished, and now I don't bother to check in anywhere near as often, and increasingly attend to other projects, where my usefulness and intentions remain less prone to be called into question. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Google quote

I'm not sure if people are aware, but google news has a "quote" feature and there is a also google in quote labs for politicians. A sample google news quote search is Peter Schiff, though virtually anybody whose been in google news can have their quotes searched.Smallman12q 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have occasionally used the quote feature of GoogleNews, but I am not very interested in quoting current news items. News articles sometimes repeat famous quotes that have stood the test of time, but are usually not very good about identifying the original sources (and sometimes just repeat misattributions and misquotes, copying from each other's mistakes). That said, I have found some good leads in the quote feature of GoogleNews, and used it to locate archives of original reports. (E.g., I recently used it to find quotes when Art Clokey passed away.) ~ Ningauble 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The News Archive is good. i have just de-prodded Alex Ferguson using that.--Ole.Holm 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The google news quote feature doesn't have to be for recent news. It can also work on some old news quotes if you set it to "all dates"...Smallman12q 02:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

w:Towards the Republic

• “Towards the Republic (Chinese: 走向共和) or For the Sake of The Republic is a 60-episode Chinese historical drama television series produced by CCTV. It was broadcast in 2003 on CCTV and cut to 59 episodes.” — {{{2}}}

I would like to know if it is OK to create Towards the Republic on wikiquote?Arilang1234 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If reliably sourced quotes from the series are available, sure, why not? BD2412 T 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Wikiquote on the interwiki

Being technically challenged, I've been trying to see if it's possible to put a link to the Welsh Wikiquote in the "in other languages" navigation boxes on the left hand side?
I've been working on articles and although we are a small project, we have over 200 articles now (not bad considering we were proposed for closure a few months ago...) Does anybody know how a Welsh (or Cymraeg) link could be added so that more people know of our existence? Thankyou. Rhodri77 10:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

At the foot of the page (below the categories), put [[cy:page name]] , where "page name" is the name of the page at Cymraeg Wikiquote. E.g., I just put one on the Main page here (without a page name, which automatically links to the main page). Congratulations to the cy.wikiquote community for reinvigorating the project in the face of closure! ~ Ningauble 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Long may the project continue. Thankyou! Rhodri77 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New software problems

I usually haven't minded this being among the first wikis to be used for testing of new Wikimedia software in the past, but the latest changes in editing functions have been extremely bothersome and I cannot recommend them being retained. I began noticing the lag in the edit box opening up a few days ago, and increasingly realized how horrendously irritating some of the editing options have become. On one's preference pages there are now options for different styles in the edit box — but none of these increased options work out at all for me. I cannot even paste-in extensive work directly from Textwrangler, a basic text-editor I have often used, without the result turning into a mess, but have to paste my work into a styled-text editor before pasting work into the edit box. Many previously solid formatting options available are now atrociously quirky and unreliable, and previously, where pressing the tab key moved one from the edit box to the comment box, it now produces a tab within the text edit box, and I much prefer the previous behavior. I do not expect I am the only one encountering these problems, and see no actual advantages to any of the changes I have noticed, but other comments are invited. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not experiencing the problems you describe. Do you know which changes introduced these issues? I keep my configuration very simple: I use the MonoBook skin, and have not selected "try beta" or "Use external editor" &c. (I do external editing by manual copy & paste.) After a career in software engineering, I have no longer have much patience for being a guinea pig for software that is a work in progress.

(If you want to see a disaster in the making, check out the Liquid threads discussion interface being tried at the Strategy wiki. The basic idea is a good one, but I think the design and implementation suck. It is being described as a "beta test" on the Strategy wiki but, from my perspective, this exercise in incremental design specification is so not beta-ready.) ~ Ningauble 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I had tried Beta when it first came out, but reverted to the standard format soon after, and I too use the default mono style. Thinking I might simply be having some software problems of my own, I rebooted my computer after reading your message, but the problems I mentioned persisted. I then reset my preferences slightly and specified sans-serif font editing (when I noticed the problems, I had the default setting and tried the mono spacing without any improvements)— and that seems to be more like the old way, and I can even TAB to the summary box, so perhaps the worst of my problems are over. I will see how it goes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are not alone in experiencing technical difficulties — I just noticed a watchlist notice at Wikipedia:

"Several bugs were introduced with recent 'Beta' enhancements by the Usability team. They recommend that those users having issues with experimental features disable them; features can be turned off at Preferences → Editing tab → Experimental features."

Don't you love it when the developers, assuming en.Wikipedia is the center of the universe, neglect to notify other projects about changes and issues? (Pity the folks at the Strategy wiki, where experimental beta features are enabled by default.) ~ Ningauble 13:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia dosen't have a email web site. why can your photos or certain items cannot find the neccessary right distination of your information goes to the right location without a lot of hassel.due to brooding my work was left to be contumie before it was post edit. i have unfinish work that i can't finish. it didn't click but view a page low and behold there it was quoted and posted not my consent of approval and or sign it to be release. susan.—This unsigned comment is by 69.171.163.164 (talk • contribs) .

Is there a specific application software which is used for editing a Wiki. Maybe someone out there knows something. Please let me know, thanks in advance.

Call for proposals for Wikimedia UK initiatives

Hi all. The Wikimedia UK board has been putting together a budget for the next year (You can see this, and help with its development, here) and we have some money left over. We are looking for proposals for projects/iniatives with budget requirements in the range of £100-£3000 (GBP). These projects can be either online or offline, but they should be primarily focused on the UK and they must further the objects of Wikimedia UK (broadly, to collate/develop/spread freely licensed material).

The deadline for proposals is the end of this month (i.e. 0:00 UTC on 1 March 2010). You can find more details of the requirements, and how to submit proposals, on our blog. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Entering quotes about anti-Russian sentiment

I would like to add quotes about anti-Russian sentiment, but when considering neutral point of view policy, I would like to ask if I should add a new section at Russia or add a separate article.--Jusjih 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same on WQ as on WP. I think it would be quite OK to do either.--Ole.Holm 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Random quote widget

Is there a javascript code snippet or any other sort of web widget that allows external webpages to show a random wikiquote everytime they are loaded/refreshed?

No. The quotes in Wikiquote are not in a database. They are just text on the page, so the only way they are served is by the whole page.

Someone could theoretically write a program to extract smaller quotes from the pages and put them into a database from which they could be randomly served, but it's not a trivial task. The pages aren't quite standardized enough to easily do a reliable job. The extracted data would still require a lot of manual selection, editing, and classification.

—KHirsch 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BotWars: Simple English interwiki

A long time ago in a wiki far, far away...    Actually, it was only last year that there was an active WikiMedia project called Simple English Wikiquote, but the meta community voted to close it and it has been locked down.
At this time there are bots (some not yet officially flagged) running around reverting each other adding and removing interwiki links to the defunct project. These links will eventually go dead, after the wiki is archived at the incubator or elsewhere. Is it the consensus of the Wikiquote community that we should no longer have these interwiki links? ~ Ningauble 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When the wiki is taken down then of course the links should go. I don't know if they should before the wiki does.--Ole.Holm 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely do not think this should be an external decision, to remove links on a local project with a bot whose operator is not familiar with this particular project. It is also not constructive to have random bots running willy-nilly doing random things. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

svn wikiquote_family.py - simple wikiquote it is added in the list on removal interwiki. --Eleferen 07:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the script is wrong, and this local community does not at this point in time support consensus to do that. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point in keeping these links. (Disclosure: I manually removed Simple: interwikis from the Main page and Village pump myself.[1][2].) As far as I know, consensus to close the project is conclusive, and the only reason its pages are still viewable is because the developer assigned to shut it down has not acted. Is there a proposal to resuscitate the project currently under discussion somewhere? ~ Ningauble 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the pages on the project will remain locked and stable. As such, they are inherently useful to link to. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not expect so, but inertia may keep them in place for some time. The process seems to be rather ad hoc, undocumented, backlogged, and lacking clear lines of responsibility.[3][4][5] "Apart from the common practices ... there is no official policy on closing projects"[6] but, from what I gather, the expected outcome is that content and history will be moved to the incubator.[7] It is no longer a Wikimedia project, but it could conceivably be adopted elsewhere under CC-BY-SA. ~ Ningauble 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some firm statement unequivocally that all pages on that project will be deleted - I see no reason to remove the interwiki links. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you should block ALL bots: [8] ;-) --Eleferen 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That bot appears to have been previously approved to run by the community. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Is there the rollback right flag here?--  † CR₉₀  03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Not yet at least. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be implemented.--  † CR₉₀  04:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Quillercouch (Poetlister/Cato et al.)

Since this seems to be a much more popular discussion page than the administrators' noticeboard, I just wanted to notify the readers here that I have created a new thread here; there is a new Poetlister sockpuppet afoot, User:Ole.Holm. Jonas Rand 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a comment there which I repost here:

The observation that Ole.Holm has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Poetlister/Cato appears to be valid. I am reserving and developing my own assessments on the matter, knowing that people have been wrongly suspected and accused of being even more obviously pernicious vandals and trolls. The poster of this message also seems to be a blocked entity, because of pervasive harassment elsewhere, and I am not personally inclined to look into the matter more than I have to, as I am no longer an admin who might be expected to do further investigation, but merely an editor who seeks to know just a little about those I work amongst. ~ Kalki 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have to be leaving soon so I might not be able to make further observations here for a few hours. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The checkusers here are already aware of this. I had already informed them of the block on Wikipedia and asked them to investigate. People here will no doubt wish to hear what they say. There can be no doubt that they will vindicate me. In any case, I invite people to examine my 3,000 edits and decide whether I am some dangerous vandal. Compare my edits to those of Ionas68224, who is blocked not only on WP but also Commons, Meta[9] and Simplewiki [10].

I have made my own investigations on Wikipedia Review. I see no evidence that this "Trick cyclist" is me beyond expressing a preference to edit here rather than on Wikipedia, which is surely also true for many other editors here. In any case, it appears that the alleged "esoterica related to sexual deviancy" amounts to no more than knowing that lycra and spandex are brand names for elastane![11] As for being Danish, I have lived most of my life in Britain and regard myself as British.

If Wikipedia Review is a reliable source, note that it says there that "Jonas Rand" is actually a middle-aged woman called Linda Rand who impersonates teenagers.[12] If so, you may wonder how reliable anything from this editor is.

Meanwhile I shall not edit Wikiquote further until this matter is resolved.--Ole.Holm 19:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

• Scholarships
• Scholarships FAQ

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

Renaming a category

Please help I am familiar with the CfD process at Wikipedia, but I don't know if there is an equivalent here. Presently, under Category:Americans, there are several subcategories related to states. Two issues that are worth discussing:

1. Some categories are named in the style "People from X" (e.g. Category:People from Connecticut) and others are named after local demonyms (e.g. Category:New Yorkers.) It seems wise for these to be standardized.
2. The category for persons from Indiana is Category:Indianans, which is a coinage. Persons from Indiana are most commonly called "Hoosiers."

Thanks for any input on these matters. Koavf 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The names are indeed inconsistent, but a far greater inconsistency lies on the fact that only a handful of people are categorized this way. I don't really see the relevance of this scheme of classification for Wikiquote's purposes. ~ Ningauble 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. Suppose I'm writing a speech on great moments in Indiana history, and want to pepper it with quotes from famous Hoosiers? I do, however, think that these categories should consistently mirror Wikipedia's category scheme, available at w:Category:People by state in the United States, which uses "People from (state)". BD2412 T 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense in principle, and I don't really object. I was just pointing out the inconsistency, which does not make these categories very useful in practice.

Consider the case of the peripatetic Mark Twain, who is categorized as a Missourian and a Californian: he is notable as a person from Missouri because he wrote about the place and wrote for the Hannibal Journal, and notable as a person from California because he wrote about the place and wrote for The Californian. He is not categorized as a person from Connecticut even though that is where he ultimately settled, raised his family, and wrote his major novels. Perhaps this is because people there do not brag about him in quite the same way as do people from Hannibal, MO and San Francisco, CA. Wikipedia categorizes him as being from all these places, and also New York and Nevada, which makes good sense for biographical research even though he is not particularly notable as being from there. (Even Wikipedia does not categorize him as being from the Milky Way galaxy, even though he lived there all his life and wrote for The Galaxy magazine.) I suspect the difference between the wikis lies primarily in the nature of granfalloons, a concept originally defined by Kurt Vonnegut in Cat's Cradle, Ch. 42, with reference to Hoosiers in particular. So it goes....

Be that as it may, I agree that Wikipedia's naming convention is better. ~ Ningauble 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How to extract all quotes?

Hello,

I have downloaded a dump from Wikiquote and now I'm trying to extract a list of all quotes. This does not seem to be easy, because the quotes are all embedded inside the articles (eg. no normalization). Can anyone give me a hint? How can I extract the list of quotes?

Thank you,

Dora

There is no way to automate this. Wikiquote is not organized as a database of quotations, but as a collection of articles using MediaWiki markup. While there is some consistency in the layout of most articles, it is not nearly rigorous enough to make automatic extraction feasible. ~ Ningauble 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

popups

Could an admin add Lupin's popups to Gadgets? I find it highly useful in all wiki things. Griffinofwales 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide us with a link to that Gadget? Thanks --Aphaia 08:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see more of stephen kings dark tower series quotes on the wikiquote screensaver, is there anyway i can add them myself? or they can be added into the database which is apparently linked to the screensaver?

sincerely,

th

Wikimania 2010

Wikimania 2010, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, and tutorials related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from July 9-11, 2010 in Gdansk, Poland. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons image inclusion debates

Hey, I'd like you to remind now very active debates go on elsewhere about Commons inclusion policy, rest you hasn't noticed yet. Currently the main issue is inclusion of non-educational and erotic images which are suspected to upload for self-promotion of subjects.

While I'm not sure how it has affected, affects now and will do us actually, it may influence us theoretically, since we now totally rely on Commons as image and media repository, disabling our own upload feature.

Discussions happen in several places, including

• Commons:Village pump
• foundation-l archives of this month (May 2010)

Meta (meta:Goings-on) has some derivative discussions, including "founder" flag and so on.

If you know other active fora, please feel free to add them. Thanks. --Aphaia 08:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest open!

Dear Wikiquote users,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2009 Picture of the Year competition has now opened. Any user registered at a Wikimedia wiki since 2009 or before with more than 200 edits before 16 January 2010 (UTC) is welcome to vote.

Over 890 images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are fighting to impress the highest number of voters. From professional animal and plants shots, over breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying world's best architecture, maps, emblems and diagrams created with the most modern technology and impressing human portrays, Commons features pictures for all flavours.

Check your eligibility now and if you're allowed to vote, you may use one of your accounts for the voting. The vote page is located at: Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting.

Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. In the final round, when only 20 images are left, you must decide for one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Wikimedia Commons is looking forward for your decision in determinating the ultimate featured picture of 2009.

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009 --The Evil IP address 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to bar StarWarsFanBoy from VfD participation for one month.

I, have, unfortunately, come around to the position that something must be done with respect to StarWarsFanBoy and his disingenuous commentary in VfD discussions. He has, for several months, consistently voted to delete pages with boilerplate language that complains of issues not present within the page under discussion. He occasionally inserts other unhelpful and potentially disruptive comments into the discussion, such as this clearly false assertion that "everyone picked delete for this page" at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Noam Chomsky. While it may be a simple thing for experienced project members (and closing admins) to shrug off his comments, they are at best unhelpful, and at worst may cause confusion and distress to occasional editors who are unfamiliar with his pattern of conduct and the weight that his comments are given in these discussions. I welcome StarWarsFanBoy to continue participating in all other areas of this project, but I must propose the imposition of a community bar on his participation in deletion discussions for a period of one month from the date of the resolution of this discussion. BD2412 T 21:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am only trying to get rid of very bad pages during VFDs and tell the admins that some VFDs are still open and not closed after their Closing dates. Besides my goal is to get things to obey our Manual of style, obey our policies and get rid of only bad pages.(StarWarsFanBoy 23:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

• Support temporary ban from VfD discussions. StarWarsFanBoy has made some good article edits since returning under a new account, but participation in discussions has been entirely unconstructive. At a time when the project has experienced a drop-off in active contributors, we can ill-afford to subject visitors to nonsensical and provocative remarks.

  I encourage StarWarsFanBoy to continue making good article edits, but please stop disrupting discussions with things that are not relevant (like the MOS). ~ Ningauble 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We need the MOS because its how most pages are not to messy or need a cleanup template and besides I am only trying to explain why pages need to be deleted on VFDs.(StarWarsFanBoy 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

• Support, per discussion above - this user, while perhaps good-intentioned, has nonetheless become quite a nuisance. ~ UDScott 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support even reluctantly for a goodwill editor but lacking knowledge and understandings enough to get involved into managerial works. Deleting a page with meaningful content just because it doesn't follow MOS is nonsense. Styles are for substance, to help understand it, not over substance. Our mission is spreading knowledge, not style. Our missions consist in spreading knowledge through significant quotes which is common goods for the whole human beings, not spreading good style to display quotes. The reply of StarWarsFanBoy here made me suspect he hasn't understood yet, which is a very basic thing for experienced participators. Also proposed one month is not too long for observance and stay calm. I hope he learns a lot during the coming month, and accumulates experiences and understandings what our missions are. --Aphaia 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am only saying is that bad articles should be deleted on VFDs and besides Manual of Style is considered a policy and the admins must enforce all policies including the Manual of Style.(StarWarsFanBoy 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

• This doesn't explain why you would falsely claim that everyone had voted to delete a page, when most of the actual votes were to keep that page. This is not the first time you've made such a claim. BD2412 T 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Look I'm just saying I'm sorry but I only want the bad to leave the Website because thats how I clean up this website.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

• There are many ways to clean up this website without participating unconstructively in deletion discussions. Perhaps a month off from those discussions will help you attain some focus as to the more constructive contributions you can make. Who knows, maybe there won't even be any deletion discussions in that time, and you won't miss anything. BD2412 T 15:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I don't fully understood StarWarsFanBoy's grievance(s) that led to this, as it appears to have all happened with some previous account. But whatever the origin, it comes across as some kind of passive-aggressive game that serves no purpose but to annoy other VFD participants (especially given his refusal to stop posting reasons for deletion that don't apply to the article in question). On Wikipedia it would be WP:POINT. I support a topic ban until he's prepared to deal with this in a straightforward manner. Gordonofcartoon 03:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - How am I supposed to get some pointless pages deleted if I get banned from VFD discussions?(StarWarsFanBoy 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Process

This is a novel discussion on this project, and we really don't have any parameters set out for when it should be drawn to a close. If no one objects, I think it would be fair to wrap it up after seven days, rounded up to the nearest hour (that is, at 22:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)), and I will ask that an admin who has not participated in the discussion take responsibility for closing it and adjudicating the decision of the community. BD2412 T 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposed process. Furthermore: if a ban is enacted the closer should post the terms on the user's talk page, warn that violating a community ban will result in blocking, and invite constructive participation after the ban expires. ~ Ningauble 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll find an uninvolved admin to close this, if there is nothing further. BD2412 T 01:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Support the proposed process, with Ningauble's. We can't stress too much that constructive participation to other parts of Wikiquote life is welcome and encouraged, and the proposed ban is just in a limited term. --Aphaia 04:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

Did I create R.L. Stine correctly? Joe Chill 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made some edits to the page - take a look at what I did. I added a better intro (taken from Wikipedia), added categories, and moved some quotes that are not truly sourced (the link just went to a page where the quotes are still not sourced). ~ UDScott 01:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed on Proverb pages

I strengthened the language about unsourced quotes at Wikiquote:Sourcing slightly, boldly added a section on Proverbs to the guideline, and added a Source line to Wikiquote:Templates/Proverbs in order to encourage the practice of providing citations. Of course, finding sources for proverbs is a (very) long-term project. I welcome community review of these amendments. ~ Ningauble 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

Hi ppl - I'm new, but keen. I just edited the Joseph Jacobs page in Wiki main, adding "Celtic Fairy Tales" to the Works section. I got the Format right - but would like someone to confirm that "The Baldwin Project" passes the Notifications standards as an external link. I would also like to create a "Baldwins Project" wiki page as my first Article because it seems such a wondewrful source of educational stuff. Would such a page be deemed "promotional"? Or would it be better if I simply edit other articles in the children's literature category, using "Baldwin Project" as a source wherever appropriate?

Thanks.

Markdask 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating an article at Wikipedia about the Baldwin project is a question for the folks at Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Notability.) Wikiquote is a separate project just for quotes.

Memorable quotes from classic children's literature are very welcome here! For some ideas about presentation, take a look at some of our articles on authors covered at the Baldwin project, such as, e.g., L. Frank Baum, Rudyard Kipling, and John Masefield. I would hesitate to add lots of links to the site in theme pages; but, while adding quotes to an article on an author or work, a discrete link to good quality online editions in the "External links" section may be appropriate. ~ Ningauble 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ningauble - yeah different projects - got it - get there eventually :)

Markdask 21:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gussying up pages with unrelated images

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.
I learn by going where I have to go. ~ Theodore Roethke

I first noticed this on the Wikiquote page for Theodore Roethke: taking excerpts of quotes and using them to caption a bunch of blandly pretty, unrelated images on the page. I thought that maybe someone had just done a poor job of this particular page, but after flipping through some random pages, I saw that this is done quite a lot. Why is this? And is it officially condoned? To me it just seems like a lot of clutter. I mean, it would be appropriate for a coffee table book, but not for a serious work of reference. Dindon 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've long noticed that some of the most shallow minded of people tend to be irritated at any show of artistry beyond the narrowness of their limited and shallow imaginations. This is neither an encyclopedia nor a dictionary — it is a compendium of quotations where many have diligently sought to present interesting statements in interesting ways. Since earliest days of Wikiquote I have always rejected and opposed the pernicious idea that a "serious work of reference" need be a bland work of monotonous uncreative presentations, ruled and dictated by people who prefer not to stretch their imaginative capacities beyond bland monotonous adherence to bland monotonous strictures and rules that people who love making up rules for others to obey find quite easy to make — and which the dullest dreariest minds all too often can use to constrain and inhibit the capacities and inclinations of people who actually have enough motivation to do some imaginative work to make pages more visually interesting presentation of more than superficial and cliche ideas which is often all the shallow minded can easily deal with, often thinking that they digest much by reading much and presuming much about how vast their understanding is, rather than how limited any mortal mind can be.

Contrary to the assumptions of many rule makers and abject rule obeyers, I have long thought that those who actually volunteer to do extensive work building up presentations to others, rather than appealing to rote herd behavior are in many ways the truly humble ones — the critics, the rule makers are the arrogant presumptuous constrainers of other peoples liberty, which contribute to many of the morbid mortifying constraints upon human vitality and individual lives. I have always been and continue to be an advocate of far greater liberty than I have found many of the more shallow minded and narrowly presumptuous of people in the world are often comfortable with. I certainly feel that they should always be quite free to indicate their ire, and I assert I others should always be quite free to respond with theirs at those who would constrain long developing liberties and vitality with rules that are needless save to those who seek to command and control others with their easily pronounced rules — rather than influence them with their diligent work and devotions. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue against your point, because I don't know what it is (rules are bad? works of reference are supposed to be creative?). I will say this though: don't be a jerk. I was asking a question in earnest, and wasn't attacking anyone. If I were a first-time wiki-editor, and this was my first impression of the wiki community, I would throw my hands up and vow never again to bother attempting to contribute. I'm not surprised at all that you were divested of your admin powers. Comporting yourself as you do above, you make a very poor ambassador for the community. Dindon 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original poster's question (rather than discuss motives and other digressions): there is no official policy or guideline on the nature or quantity of images in Wikiquote articles. Although a few visitors to the site have questioned this, the customary practice, as you observe, has included abundant illustration. Individual articles are treated on a case-by-case basis.

From my own perspective, some pages are not quite to my taste in this respect but I don't see any need for broad rules because it does no real harm. (I must confess, however, that one reason I no longer participate in the "Quote of the Day" project is because I do not want quotes I nominate to be associated on the main page with images that I might find inappropriate.) ~ Ningauble 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with transwiki

Hello, I'm new to Wikiquote and need some help. I recently did a transwiki from Wikipedia --> Wikiqoute for the first time and I'd like someone to review it to make sure I did everything okay and if it is yet suitable to move out of the Transwiki: namespace. Also, as per Help:Transwiki#Incoming transwikis and m:Help:Transwiki#Complete transwiki (local users) someone more familiar with Wikiquote should probably check if it "overlaps one or more existing articles" or "may appear inappropriate for Wikiquote", afaik there's no such article existing on Wikiquote so I thought it may benefit this project. I suppose it will also need to be properly wikified to suit Wikiquote's standards (removing all the redlinks, properly categorized, etc.) but if Wikiquote is better served by merging this information into another existing article then that should be done instead. The article is at Transwiki:List of political catch phrases. Thanks, OlEnglish 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I thought the transwiki process was intended to carry the actual page history of the transwikied material. In any case, I think it is fine to do it by reference if the process is not automated. BD2412 T 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of these quotes would be excellent additions to articles on the people who originally said them, or good starting points for articles about them. Some would be good additions to articles in Category:Politics or other themes that the quotes address. However, this topic seems too broad and amorphous for a single theme page. (Cf. the substantial effort last year to clean up and re-factor the Politics article. Much was achieved, but it could still use some work.) ~ Ningauble 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BD2412, if that is so then the Help:Transwiki page needs to be updated. I'm unfamiliar with how to use Special:Import but it tells me I need to be part of the group "Transwiki importers" to do it anyway. -- OlEnglish 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well be that the process just doesn't work for Wikiquote as it does for, say, Wiktionary. BD2412 T 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although a "Transwiki importers" group exists, at this point only Administrators have the "import" right on Wikiquote. I imagine the feature works, as it appears to have been used in the early days of the wiki, but I have never experimented with it myself. ~ Ningauble 16:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for an assessment?

I feel that we should do a top down assessment of all Wikiquote pages while the project is still small enough for that to be a reasonable goal. We have about 18,000 articles, of which 2,000 are mere blank pages reserved for years. Of the 16,000 remaining, I have a thousand on my watchlist, and I'm guessing that if we eliminate the articles on the watchlists of our other active admins, we should be able to pare it down to a few thousand. If we get to, say, 3,000 unwatched pages and can divvy those up between ten editors, that's 300 a piece, which is a reasonable number to do a quick flip-through and make sure nothing is egregiously wrong with them. How about it? BD2412 T 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm game, although I have much less on my own watchlist - only 170 currently. But it sounds like a plan. ~ UDScott 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. Is there a way to determine which articles are not watched by active admins without laying it out for potential bad actors to see? BD2412 T 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Only 58 on my watchlist, I'm afraid, but this sounds like a good idea. -Sketchmoose 20:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Put them on a deleted page. That works without a software enhancement. (A useful enhancement might be "hidden categories only admins can see.") Antandrus 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be a good start. Of course, only admins can see [Unwatched pages], but that doesn't indicate pages that are on inactive watchlists (or, theoretically, vandal watchlists). BD2412 T 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there are about 4,800 unwatched pages in article space, or roughly 1/3 of all articles (excluding redirects, year page placeholders, & disambiguation pages). I would surmise that if so many as 2/3 of all articles are "watched", the watches are mostly inactive and/or watched by the article creators. ~ Ningauble 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

More than I had imagined. BD2412 T 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought you meant something like Wikipedia's Wikiproject article assessment tags or Good Article reviews. The idea of doing a sweep for obvious problems has merit, as there are surely a significant number that could persist more or less indefinitely without showing up on Recent Changes or being tagged for maintenance, though they must be far fewer than the ever-growing number of tagged problems that we are already not keeping up with.

Whenever I have attempted to survey broad groups of articles or maintenance categories, I have run up against limitations in my own ability to assess them: For many subjects I am unable to distinguish between blather arising from contributor tomfoolery, and contributions that are "legitimate" quotations of blathering sources – not without undertaking research that would make my head explode from the sheer mindlessness of it. Wikipedia's method of assigning articles to Wikiprojects is a good one, because it directs the attention of interested and knowledgeable people to the articles. Unfortunately, I don't think the Wikiquote community is large enough to use this method for providing adult supervision in all subject areas, not even all of the "popular" ones.

(I keep my own watchlist trimmed to 500 pages, about 2/3 of which are articles, and many of which are intentionally temporary watches. Perhaps one should not read too much into the fact that a page is watched: Sometimes I watchlist a page to monitor developments because I know it just ain't right but am not yet sure what, if anything, to do about it.)

That said, a "quick flip through" is probably a good idea even though it will likely not "make sure" of anything more than that everything has at least been looked at by a sensible person. How about making a short list of things to check for, in addition to the defining characteristics of maintenance categories (e.g. "zombies" – people not categorized as living or dead)? ~ Ningauble 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing we should look for is article titles that we have here that do not exist on Wikipedia. Those should raise an immediate suspicion about notability. What else? Just obvious crap pages, in general. We should, by the way, have some means of designating our best pages, if only to provide examples against which others can be measured. BD2412 T 00:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Two areas to give particular attention to are unwatched pages and short pages. I have created User:YearPageWatchlist‎ to "watch" all the year placeholders, in order to remove them from the list of unwatched pages (it will take a few days for this to kick in), and in a similar vein, I have added a long comment to all of those pages and several short disambig pages to either remove them, or at least move them up, in the list of short pages. After these fixes are registered in the system, we can take a harder look at our currently unwatched and short pages. BD2412 T 03:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WHy does a site get blacklisted?

I wanted to add this site ( www.mansonquotes.com )to Marilyn Mansons page but when I tried it came up "black listed" I don't see anything wrong with the site....why is this? I asked this question in the wrong place before so sorry

--anon

Unreliable aggregated quote sites are often spammed onto pages, this should be aggressively prevented in favor of utilizing reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Standards for proverbs and tongue twisters.

We have a number of wholly unsourced pages of proverbs from various nations/languages, and tongue twisters for the same. I see no reason why these quotes should be held to any lower of a standard for sourcing. If there is a rationale to be heard, please let me know. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree - having no standards just encourages the proliferation of false or ridiculous additions (much like we used to have with Advertising slogans). I would support requiring these to be sourced, even if that leads to the majority of them being removed. ~ UDScott 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on tongue twisters, by the way? I suppose they count as quotes, although they tend to be meaningless. BD2412 T 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of - although I do seem to recall one or more of them being nominated for VFD before and in the end being kept. I'll try to look back if I have time. ~ UDScott 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll find them. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Precedent notwithstanding, I believe that non-English tongue twisters and palindromes really have no place here, even if sourced. The very essence of what might arguably make them quotable in the original language is totally lost in translation. ~ Ningauble 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on sourcing proverbs in general is expressed by the phrase "should be cited" in my recent addition to Wikiquote:Sourcing#Proverbs (mentioned above). A couple other thoughts on such pages:

1. Non-English proverbs (if sourced) present a subtle issue. There is clearly good reason to include proverbs that have been widely quoted using a foreign language within English language works (as has been popular, e.g., in epochs when French and Latin loomed large in world literature, or with languages such as Welsh and Gaelic that are major tributaries of English). On the other hand, most such proverbs survive in English versions, and their non-English roots might better be included as source notes to the derivative English proverbs, rather than in separate pages. Where such origins are known, their inclusion is a Very Good Thing™.
   My opinion is doubtless a controversial one, for it runs against precedent, but I don't mean to be chauvinistic: there are other very good places for proverbs that are not proverbial in the English-speaking world.
2. English language proverbs broken out by nationality, ethnicity, or dialect seem problematic to me. (Witness the recently failed attempt to create a Canadian version.) Current breakouts between Proverbs, English proverbs, American proverbs, &tc. seem hopelessly muddled. Is the point to determine where they are currently popular, where they are distinctively characteristic, or where they originated? It looks as if the practice often merely reflects where the contributor happens to live! The average contributor, IMO, is not competent to classify them; and even serious researchers are sorely pressed to sort them out.
   From an anti-chauvinistic perspective, I would be pleased to have Americanisms, Briticisms (or "Britishisms," to use an Americanism), and all the rest comingled. The great English language proverbs are pan-Anglophone, and if colloquial ones are proverbial enough to be included, let them mingle promiscuously with the rest (using notes on origins as appropriate) rather than ghettoize them.

...but I digress.

Returning to BD2412's original enquiry:   I think we should proceed expeditiously with the disposition of unsourced (at least) non-English pages (especially where translation quality is unverifiable), possibly by transwiki to other language wikis; but proceed by stages on the English language proverbs, first removing the more obviously clueless contributions before moving unsourced ones that merit research to talk pages, and perhaps waiting until some progress has been made on sourcing them rather than hastily putting them out of sight and out of mind (using the occasion as an incentive to work on sourcing). ~ Ningauble 22:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have an additional concern. Many (if not most) of our "proverbs" pages were created by anon IPs with large initial text dumps, raising the possibility that these have been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the Internet. BD2412 T 22:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubtlessly so: Some were previously expunged when the sources from which they were stolen were identified. ~ Ningauble 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that we should move non-English tongue twisters to their home-language wikis. BD2412 T 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Author rights issue

Good evening, I'm active on Czech Wikipedia but I'm a newcommer on Wikiquote. And as our Wikiquote is not so active, I'll better ask here. I read and searched through FAQs in both Czech and English Wikiquotes but haven't found any reply to my question. Would anyone tell me, please, if I copy quotes of famous persons from other webpages (although mentioning a source), isn't it a copyright violation? Living famous people usually provide quotes for some medias and I'm affraid that it may be copyright infringement but as it's quote, it cannot be written by my own words to not violate author rights like when contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for any reply. --Wespecz 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some pointers toward answering your questions:   Copying all of, or a substantial portion of, somebody else's collection of quotes would violate presentation copyright, although these can be good starting points for research. Quoting from copyrighted publications within the limits of fair use is fine, and there is some guidance at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations for what may be considered fair. Quotes should be cited to reliable sources, not just anybody's web page, and it is best to track down and cite the original published source whenever possible. Verifiable, reliable sources are especially important for living people, as is limiting oneself to quotes that are actually famous or quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A question

I'm a completely new user of Wikiquote though I have a fair amount of experience with WB and WP. I'd like to learn the ropes here so I'll appreciate if anyone could tell me:

• How you classify quotes. I know quotes can be classified by theme and people here, as I have previously used Wikiquote before. But are there ways other than that to classify quotes?
• What is your inclusion criteria? I'm sure that you won't accept a random quote from a random person off the street, but how would you deem a quote significant for WQ?

That's all the questions I have now. Thanks. Kayau 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, no, I have one more. Is there any chance that Wikiquote could collaborate with WP's Motto of the day project? Just a thought...

Greetings! The three main categories of Wikiquote articles are People, Productions (i.e., Works), and Themes. Fundamental categories also include Proverbs and Lists. Some inclusion criteria are described at Wikiquote:Quotability and in an essay at Wikiquote:Notability. See also what Wikiquote is and is not. Wikiquote is a small community that does not have "Wikiprojects" like MOTD, but there is a Quote of the Day on the Main Page. ~ Ningauble 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. I'll read the guidelines and essays through when I have time. What I have in mind is, a Wikiquotian (or whatever you're called anyway: pedia-pedian, books-bookian, news-newsie) who has some knowledge of Wikipedia, especially quotian-pedians (like Cirt), could help out at the MOTD by suggesting quotes for us to use, then either the quotian or a MOTD pedian can link and nominate it. What do you think of that? Kayau 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents, I'm part of the MotD process on WP, and I don't think that we should do this. No offense to all of you, but we seem to be doing quite well on our own, and I'm sure that you all have enough to do here. Hi878 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi878, that was slightly rude. I've just completely changed the scope of the proposal here. If anyone cares to weigh in (or object, since this means we may be getting our sticky little fingers all over your project), it will be appreciated. Sonia 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry if that sounded rude; I didn't mean it to be at all. If I offended anybody, I am very sorry. 98.125.166.11 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel offended, and thanks for offering your apologies. I didn't know WP's MOTD, and giving a glance its scope is different from our WQ:QOTD. MOTD people are welcome to reuse past QOTD, but I am not sure Wikiquotians are interested in helping in MOTD, not offense, but because 1) currently we don't have any project to offer quotes for specific purpose, while it could be useful, and 2) as Hi878 suggests there are things enough to do here. --Aphaia 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Undid IP edit

I've undid an edit by an IP who added an external link to a non-English site, and seems to be spam. Please revert my edit if I am wrong. Thanks, Kayau 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did right. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sukhorukov quotes

Subsequent to Votes for deletion/Leonid S. Sukhorukov, some single purpose IP contributor(s), operating over a period of many months, added Sukhorukov quotes to no less than 80 theme pages. See VFD talk. Unless someone presents good reason not to, I will begin removing all of them shortly. ~ Ningauble 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. They should all be deleted. ~ UDScott 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Gone. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hi, I attended Wikimania (and that was mainly why I was on a wikibreak), and it was great. One of best things in venue for me was that I met there was meetings of other Wikiquotians - and it was my first Wikimania I met Wikiquotians who had known only by names! I met User:Nemo bis, Italian Wikiquote sysop and Casey Brown (Cbrown1023). Bad news are there was no presentation on Wikiquote and our project was missed to mention on the program cover ;( There could be other criticism, but generally it was a great conference. Just it would be greater, if Wikiquote had been much more focused on. --Aphaia 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I have an issue regarding an IP. After a deletion discussion involving the Rob Schneider article, an IP has recreated it and as a result, I immediately tagged it for speedy deletion, but the IP has swiftly reverted my edits. Is there any possible way to help solve this problem? Thanks. Sjones23 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I salted the article for one week. Hope to pace it down ... --Aphaia 09:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Usability Initiative rollout

Rollout at Wikiquote of the new skin and editing tools (as seen at Wikipedia) appears to have been postponed from "end of July" (i.e. now) until "mid August."[13] Prepare to be surprised.  ; ) ~ Ningauble 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Phase V Deployment is now scheduled for August 25.

I just checked out the "Try beta" option to see if the configuration is working locally, with mixed results:   The basic skin, including new tab-strip and search-box, seems to be working as at Wikipedia (which is not to say that it is working correctly, just that it rolls out warts and all), but the new editing toolbar is not showing up for me in IE7. ~ Ningauble 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I had to manually enable "Show edit toolbar" at My preferences. I am happy to report that I can now see all of the warts. ~ Ningauble 16:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Phase V Deployment has been rescheduled for September 1. Nobody should be surprised. ~ Ningauble 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How to contact original author of a wiki page?

My apologies for what's probably a most elementary question, but I cannot find the answer to it. How and under what circumstances can/must an editor contact authors of articles?

I've for a while been editing Wiki grammar as I come across obvious minor errors; that's been working fine. Tonight I found a page (Langdon_Smith#Evolution) with what seem to be more serious mis-writing, so I've added a comment to that page's discussion. The writing in question comes from 2007, and the last time that the page was discussed or edited was in May 2007 and Sept 2009, respectively. My comment is a suggestion, yet because the page is so lightly traveled, I'm guessing that no one will see or react to it. I'm not being vain, I just want as a matter of courtesy to alert the author (Kalki) to my comment. The problem is that though I can reach Kalki's page, I can't seem to find out how to send him or her a note. I'd appreciate help with this, and more important, on the custom in regard to contacting article authors. - Mahnut 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I still regularly review pages here, usually at least daily, if not more often, though my interest and involvement in monitoring things here have diminished considerably since some controversial assertions, contentions and decisions of last November, but I responded to some of your comments on the Talk:Langdon Smith‎‎ page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, I've continued the discussion.

As to my general question above, I guess that when one wants to resurrect discussion or substantive editing of an orphan-ish article, the best way to reach authors - if they're still contributing - is to post a request here. Is this correct? Mahnut 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually leaving a note on their "talk" page (or "discussion page") as they now tend to be labelled, would usually be better for getting into direct contact, as these provide an orange flag notification whenever the user checks in. I am just briefly checking in now, and noticed your comments merely incidentally, as they didn't show up on my view of "Recent changes" as many edits had been made to the wiki which placed if far below the list of recent edits I normally check. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Shaped by God

I semi-protected this deletion discussion in response to the sockpuppet onslaught. If any admin disagrees with this action, please feel free to unprotect. BD2412 T 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but it might have been better to post a {{VfdAnons}} notice before resorting to protection. No harm done. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BD2412/Unlisted names - new sort

I've run a new search for unlisted names, and posted the results at User:BD2412/Unlisted names. There are fewer than 700, less than a tenth of what we had the first time, so this should go much faster. Any help plugging these into the lists of people by name would be most appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikiquote importer"

I have to request this.

Replacing w:User:DottyQuoteBot, this bot will update w:Template:QOTD.

Thoughts, flames? (And I may plan to do copyright cleanup) I-20 01:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Dottydotdot's defunct bot is a fine idea, thanks for taking it on. I have some reservations about using "Wikiquote importer" as the account name for your requested bot because it might give the misleading impression of operating in an official capacity. "Importer" is the name of a user right, like "Administrator." Perhaps something along the lines of "Quote of the day bot" (but shorter) would be better. ~ Ningauble 12:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External link added to George Lincoln Rockwell

An IP added a link at George Lincoln Rockwell to a collection of the subjects writings and speeches on a white supremacist website, victoryforever.com. My initial inclination was to delete the link based on the general content of the website, but it does seem to be a fairly thorough collection of materials directly relating to the subject of the page, and it's not as though there is anything else on that website that is more offensive than what the subject himself has to say. Should the link stay or go? BD2412 T 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally frown on linking to most sorts of advocacy sites, as Wikiquote is not a networking platform for such organizations. An argument might be made for linking this information in the Wikipedia article if it is considered sufficiently reliable, but there are currently no links to the site in any Wikipedia articles. (Disclosure: My views on external links in general is probably more restrictive than the broader community's consensus.) ~ Ningauble 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Still undecided on this link in particular. It does lead to a trove of actual quotes by the subject. Perhaps we should just add a caution/disclaimer? BD2412 T 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New gadget: wikt:MediaWiki:Gadget-WiktSidebarTranslation.js

It would be elegant to import this gadget, especially for those who have never installed any additional fonts. It just translates the interwiki links into English, you can test it by ticking it here. JackPotte 09:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New gadget: the subtitles in the videos

Bugzilla are inviting us to put this gadget allowing to see the subtitles with the videos (already installed at least on en.w, fr.w, fr.b, fr.v & Commons) directly in Mediawiki:Common.js. Actually, they need some feedback. JackPotte 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Am I the first person to be the sole contributor to a 70,000+ byte article? Jc iindyysgvxc 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I hate to break it to you - the page is way too long and requires extensive trimming (see the note on the Talk page and refer to WQ:LOQ). ~ UDScott 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Countervandalism channel IRC

Hello dear Wikiquote-users,

It's been a while since the last check, but I noticed the #cvn-wq-en channel on irc.freenode.net is abandoned. The recentchanges-bot from the CVN (named MartinBot) has been offline for about a year, but no request has been found so far for a replacement.

Please note that at any time the CVN could just start a feed in there, no problem at all.

Although I would like to point out though that (concluding from the inactivity) perhaps the channel is not wanted anymore. Therefor this message.

Note that there is also Special:RecentChanges and #en.wikiversiy on irc.wikimedia.org which monitors any and all activity, but for a project as big Wikiquote it may be impossible to monitor activity in such a busy stream.

The advantage of a CVN-channel over the regular feed from irc.wikimedia.org is that it filters down to suspicious edits (all anonymous edits and otherwise notable edits for vandal fighters (large removals, blanking, certain trigger-words) and filters these based on a globally shared database of blacklisted and whitelisted usernames and other patterns (these are shared amongst all cvn-channels).

Either way, setting up the channel is no hassle at all. So state below what you think about it and whether or not you would like such a channel again. Krinkle 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ABOUT DOT COM

Why is a widely used information site like About dot com on the spam protection filter blacklist? In recent months I have often had to erase any mention of it from pages to simply revert vandalism. I doubt seriously that we have ever been massively inundated with actual spamming from this site, and we and most Wikimedia projects commonly link to other well used commercial information sites like IMDb. Unless there is an actual Wikimedia policy against About of which I am unaware I believe it should be removed from our spam protection filter. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Cirt blacklisted it[14] because somebody was using it to cite poor quality and/or unreliable content. Like yootoob, it is generally not a good quality source citation but can be a useful supplementary link for a citation that identifies the original source or a reliable print source. So I think that, like yootoob, it probably does not need to be blacklisted even though it can definitely be misused. ~ Ningauble 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Solution against the broken external links: back up the Internet

For two years, http://wikiwix.com allows the French Wikipedia to read the external sites, which URL are in its article, even if they're stopped, thanks to a link [Archive] after each URL. Today they're proposing to extend their backups to us, and it's working on the French Wiktionary. Could we please get a consensus to install it here? JackPotte 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example: do you see the reference at the bottom of wikt:fr:welcome? I've just added it and the archive link is already available. JackPotte 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds cool, I support it. Folks, thought? --Aphaia 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote:External links

We have had a few external link-related issues come up in the past few weeks. I think it is high time we set forth a policy governing exactly when and where external links will be permitted, and when and where they will be prohibited. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome greater clarity, as I have often been uncertain where the consensus of established editors draws the line, but this is a very difficult area to legislate because opinions vary and some of the lines are really broad grey areas. I think most of Wikipedia's WP:EL makes good sense, but Wikiquote's scope is not the same and precedent here seems to differ in several respects. Do you have some particular ideas in mind? ~ Ningauble 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also prefer something far more restrictive than Wikipedia's policy. I would specifically like a limitation to a small number of external links to reliable sources that provide general information about the subject or the subject's speeches and written works, and an express prohibition on links to fly-by-night quote collections like BrainyQuote. BD2412 T 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should be more restrictive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll draft something up in the next few days. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A short draft has been initiated. BD2412 T 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few comments to the Wikiquote talk:External links page. Much of the draft seems acceptable to me, but the attempt to narrowly constrain and contract some of the options available here is something I find extremely objectionable. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is a book-of-quotations alone a reliable source?

Hi. At Margaret Mead, the "Never doubt ..." quotation is currently sourced to a book of quotations, and not to any conclusive evidence that Mead herself ever said or wrote it. Should that quote be moved into an "Unsourced" or "Attributed" section? (Apologies if this is in an faq somewhere. I looked around the help menus, but could not find anything.)

Note: This page contains useful details about the uncertainty of the quote in question, and should probably be linked to, or incorporated here, somehow?

Thanks :) Quiddity 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A book of quotations, or any secondary source is never to be presumed an absolutely reliable one — but strictly speaking, from a genuinely skeptical stance, very few things should be treated as absolutely reliable. Any clearly relevant and peculiar information as to the reliability or unreliability of the attributions is welcome in the citation and comment sections beneath a quote. One reason I generally oppose creating separated "Attributed" sections in articles is that they break up the flow of chronological presentations based on dated sources, which can often serve as some indicator of reliability in itself, though certainly not an absolute one, and because were such a standard genuinely and rigorously applied to all relevant material, ALL translations would need to be considered "attributions" and thus nearly all of the material that dates back more than a few centuries. This is why I generally specify "as translated by", and "as quoted in" when I am not dealing with the original sources, and especially when quoting from quotation books. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another problem that has developed in recent months is that Google Books listings now include not only sources that are scans of hard copy books, but such ersatz conglomerations as "Your very own Book of Qutations" apparently created by some kind of software gathering systems, generally containing attributions which are not sourced at all, and a very casual observer might think of as deliberately researched and published material. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One has to consider the reliability of the source, not just its genre. Even before the recent phenomenon of worthless books aggregated by web trawlers, books of quotations have long been a mixed bag. Some are venerable works produced with care and diligence, some are careless and amateurish productions of little note, some are in-between, being notable but not necessarily reliable (which is, I think, the case in this instance), and some, especially among humorous or edgy ones, are contemptibly dishonest.

Even when a separate "Attributed" section is not used, I prefer to say "attributed by..." for the in-betweens, reserving "quoted by..." for firsthand reports and reports that cite their sources because "if it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."_{(You can quote me on that.)} When I have been unable to verify secondary citations, I sometimes use language like "quoted by XXX; citing YYY," or "quoted by YYY; as cited in XXX." ~ Ningauble 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

May I write "A quick guide to submissions"?

I'm a newbie here and have all these great questions that a newbie would have. I would like to write "A quick guide to submissions" while all this is still fresh in my mind as a newbie. This would be something a person could read in 30 seconds to decide if a submission is appropriate or not. I would like to start a quick outline here at the Village pump (in this thread) and then move it to its own page. Is this alright with everybody? Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch this request. I've read far too much and don't recall what my initial ideas/questions were. - Hydroxonium 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Be bold :) I'd however recommend you to use your user page instead. Make a subpage and then move it to the Wikiquote:whatever when you think it fixed. It's better to manage the page than to copy & paste from Village pump. --Aphaia 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Four months to consider an unblock?

A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- 68.87.42.110 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall redouble my effort to obtain an answer on this, so I ask again... A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

I shall retriple my effort to obtain an answer on this, so I ask again and again... A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good.

In other words, a Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a single response to the initial request, and there was a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

The guy deserves an answer. One possible answer would be a note from an admin that they are investigating the situation, giving a time within which a response will be made. It would be the total silence, on a matter which should ordinarily be handled as a priority, that would be so frustrating.

(I also understand the early delay. Who is going to unblock when Jimbo has just blocked? At that time, there was a bit of an indication that this would be an invitation to immediate desysop by Jimbo -- though with the only example, Jimbo quickly restored the tools. That situation no longer exists, it has very clearly changed. Jimbo, from an RfC at meta, gave up the right to do that, over a set of actions that included his blocking of Thekohser.)

I've provided an outline of the overall situation with this user, on the Talk page, and can provide evidence for every assertion if needed. I led the unblock effort at Wikiversity (and note that any effective unblock requires a 'crat to make it work, what with the global lock), and assisted it at Wikibooks. Both wikis decided to unblock after extensive discussion and an ultimate 75% consensus to unblock. I actually became an active Wikibooks user as a result of trying to help out.... —This unsigned comment is by Abd (talk • contribs) .

I am a relatively active wikibookian whose attention was drawn to this thread by Thekohser's Wikipedia Review post. Since wikibooks is being pointed to a few times above, I will comment but bear in mind I haven't yet contributed to this project, so anything I say should be taken somewhat lightly. I agree that there has been no major crises at wikibooks since Thekohser's unblock and he has produced a very nice page. At the same, as recently noted by several editors, some of his following edits were a bit "confrontational" (see b:User talk:Thekohser#Issues with Jimbo) both by people that opposed his unblock (such as myself) and those who supported his unblock. Locally, I also find the edit linked to from the WR article (aka this edit) a bit concerning. That edit together with this edit summary sound a bit threatening.

On other hand, his background in history is seems quite extensive and there is potentially positive contributions he could make because of that. Also, if I were in his shoes I might also be frustrated.

During his unblock proceedings at wikibooks it was frequently stated that his behavior at other wiki's should not be considered. If the community decides that this is the feeling here as well, I would point out that this principle shouldn't be applied only to disruptive actions. It should either apply to all edits or none at all. This being said, two things to keep in mind reading this post and the one above. First, I was one of the primary voices for continuing his block at wikibooks, and Abd was one of the primary voices for unblocking him. Hopefully between the two of us there is some balance. Secondly I haven't really contributed here before. The comments and links to wikibooks just encouraged me to put my two cents in. Thenub314 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that at Wikipedia User:Abd is indefinitely banned from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. Although Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction here, their findings might lead one to disregard Abd interjecting in this case. Note also that the history of edits by Abd and Thekohser at Wikiquote have been primarily concerned with contributors and persons associated with Wikimedia, suggesting that both persons are not here to build an encyclopedia of quotations, but to pursue some other agendas. ~ Ningauble 13:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ningauble is correct about my participation at Wikiquote, as to the present. I commented here because I became aware of the situation here, and I'm offering only some "sister-project" information. I've been asked on my Talk page about the en.wiki ArbComm ban, and I will answer there, it is completely irrelevant to this issue. The message I have for you is basically that this is your own decision, it is not my decision, it is not meta's decision, it is not even, any longer, Jimbo's decision. You are in charge here, and only if you conduct yourselves in such a way as to damage the other wikis will you see any interference from meta or the Foundation. I thank Thenub314 for his comment. I originally commented at Wikibooks based on "cross-wiki issues," i.e., concern for the overall welfare of the WMF family of wikis, and in support of local autonomy, but, having stopped by, I became a regular Wikibooks user, starting to accumulate significant contributions.

My support for local autonomy does not depend on whether or not Thekohser is ultimately of use to a particular project or not, it was about the right of each community to make its own decisions. There is a general principle, in operation across all the wikis, that a user is not blocked based on their behavior elsewhere, absent some special conditions, and this principle has been very useful in re-integrating users who for whatever reason run into trouble at one of the wikis. If they can become positive contributors at another wiki, it's good for that wiki and it sometimes even becomes a path of return to where they originally had a problem, and sometimes these users even become, upon return, highly productive members of that original community, and even sysops. I will agree that Thekohser has made a few possibly inappropriate remarks on Wikibooks, unnecessarily confrontive, not of local users, but on overall WMF issues. However, a wiki is not going to fall apart because of some occasional remarks; if they become a problem, it only takes a moment to warn, and only a moment to push a block button. (I will note that there are other users who think that the issue Thekohser raised on Wikibooks is an important one. I don't agree, and I've argued strongly against that -- on Wikipedia Review --, but, I'm pointing out, it takes all kinds. When we start excluding people because they hold opinions we don't like and they occasionally express them, we are sliding down a very slippery slope.

As to Thekohser's contribution record here, I would not find it inspiring. However, looking at his Talk page, I see only one "warning."[15]. The user complaining was blocked, about four months later.... If a 'crat delinks the account from the SUL, Thekohser could log in and respond on his Talk page to any sysop considering unblock, who could ask Thekohser what his intentions are, and, as I mentioned, could set conditions if they are considered appropriate. On Wikiversity and all the other wikis where he has been unblocked, no conditions were set, but his requests here have been a bit more "pushy" than elsewhere (and his record here a bit more "troublemaking," possibly), it is up to you.

Good luck with this, Wikiquote. It has happened that when this issue has been considered on the other wikis, some distorted presentations of the history have been presented. I will defer to the judgment of experienced Wikiquote users as to whether or not I should contribute what I know, with evidence, should the need arise. Thanks. --Abd 03:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should unblock. Whatever issues this user has had relating to Wikipedia, they are not an issue within the concern of our project. BD2412 T 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add a caveat to that. We should unblock Thekohser if he'll agree not to edit pages here relating to Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, or other people involved with Wikipedia. That seems to be the sort of thing that will bring down trouble. Outside of that, we have thousands of pages on historical figures, films, works, and themes for which there is much to be done and every hand would be appreciated. BD2412 T 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• That seems sensible to me, though I might suggest extending the whole of the WMF, given that not all of the board members may not have ever been involved with WP. (This is my suspicion anyways, I haven't actually checked if it is true.) Thenub314 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you a possible side effect of such unblocking. We at EnWQ Checkuser team have declined Poetlister's request for unblocking for years mainly because of his request has come from an unofficial way, not indicated to him. Doing a favor to another block evader, TheKosher, may open an older can of worms I wouldn't buy. Please note the most of Poetlister or his reincarnation posts per se were within our inclusion policy so arguably productive more than TheKosher's. I am not therefore for BD2412's tolerance here. It's not personal, but rather a matter of consistency. --Aphaia 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should also unblock Poetlister. That's just my opinion on the matter. Blocks should be no more extensive than required to safeguard the productivity of the project. BD2412 T 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to do anything about this? BD2412 T 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not inclined to grant certiorari. The basis of the appeal appears to be a juridictional question that has little bearing on the merits. ~ Ningauble 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The user stated as the reason for requesting the unblock that he has "not sinned here". What are the merits of the block existing? It seems that this block has nothing to do with anything that occurred on Wikiquote, and I would think that absent a rationale for project-wide blockage (which appear not to exist, since this user is now free to edit on several other projects), our default position should be free and open editing. It is not as though we have no use for extra hands. BD2412 T 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Offer -- I see a potential conditional offer above, that perhaps my account could be unlocked (via name change and name-back) and unblocked, if I were to make no edits to Wikiquote pages about Wikimedia-related personalities. That is fine with me. Here is an additional offer -- the current Wikiquote page about Jon Anderson is sorely lacking, featuring only a couple of (relatively obscure) segments of his song lyrics (which may even be a copyright issue). If unlocked/unblocked, I will endeavor to make the Jon Anderson page far better, copyright compliant, and comprehensive than its current status. If that goes well, then I will move on to similar improvements on others of my favorite artists' pages. In order to expedite the decision process, as seemed to work well enough on Wikibooks, I would like to put this to a vote now, since the original blocking admin (Jimmy Wales) has ignored the opportunity to weigh in. --Thekohser (using IP address 68.87.42.110 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

Time to weigh in!

I will agree to continued blocking, not to be reviewed again for 12 months, if the Wikiquote community (I define community as Wikiquote editors with at least 5 edits between June 1, 2010 and August 30, 2010) determines by at least a 40% minority that I should remain blocked. In other words, if 60% or more of the so-defined Wikiquote community would like to see me unblocked to complete at least the page about Jon Anderson, then I should be unblocked. If not, I will go away for 12 months, and we'll also see how that page develops on its own. I would hope that at least 10 community members cast a vote, for the polling to be statistically reliable. The voting should remain open until the end of September 30, UTC time. --Thekohser (using IP address 68.87.42.110 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

• It's really not up to you to determine how and when the community will weigh your unblock request. I grasp your situation (and have already expressed my opinion regarding the block), but I doubt that this proposition is helpful to your case. I personally appreciate your offer "to make no edits to Wikiquote pages about Wikimedia-related personalities", and I hope the community agrees to take you up on that. BD2412 T 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock per thekohser's agreement stated here. Ripberger 01:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote in the news

Salon.com columnist Andrew Leonard cited Wikiquote as an authority in debunking a misattribution to Alexis de Tocqueville, and quoted the misattribution note written by contributors Kalki and KHirsh in full ("How the World Works," 12 August 2010). Un-coincidentally, the very next day an IP vandal blanked it from the Misattributed section, and was reverted a few hours later. Such is the price of our fame. ~ Ningauble 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, man. Thanks for pointing it out. —KHirsch 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote in literature

John Wenzel, entertainment writer for The Denver Post, had this to say in his 2009 book, Mock Stars: Indie Comedy and the Dangerously Funny, p. 316:

"Comedy nerds [...] follow comedians around like bands, devouring their every release and obsessively seeking out new material, mentally tattooing catchphrases on their gray matter until their vocabulary resembles a Wikiquote page."

I wonder what he meant by that. Is it a good thing? ~ Ningauble 21:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think he meant that the comedy nerd's vocabulary will consist of the repetoire of quotes from his favored comedian. BD2412 T 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, and in that sense an Elizabethan drama nerd's vocabulary also resembles a Wikiquote page. I thought it was interesting to use Wikiquote as a point of reference for characterizing nerdy obsession. If the shoe fits.... ~ Ningauble 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks of CreativeEndeavors

Hi, could the socks of CreativeEndeavors be blocked? They are: Future9, TJJordan, JaneDanielsPR, and YuinUniversity. Those are the confirmed ones at English. --Bsadowski1 04:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Confirmed here too thus blocked. --Aphaia 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to signup for "email updates" from a certain page, or topic within a page?

Is it possible to signup for "email updates" from a certain page, or topic within a page? Meaning, to be notified via email of any changes or updates to that page or topic. 148.87.67.139 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is no, the software at this website doesn't send out email updates. It does provide a RSS/ATOM feed of your watchlist and recent changes. Some email can simply read these feeds, okay the only email client I know for sure that can do this is Mozilla Thunderbird, but I bet many do. If your willing to create an account with yahoo you can turn this into bona fide emails if that is what you really want. The method would be to use their pipes service to filter the Recent changes feed for the titles your interested in. The pipes software generates a new RSS feed which can be fed into their "feed/blog alerts" which will email you everytime something new gets added to the feed. I should say that this last idea is still somewhat theoretical to me, I have only tested it so far as to make a pipe that filters the Recent changes here for the word "churchill" and mixed that with a wikibooks feed, but I didn't want to flood my inbox so I didn't follow the last step actually generating the email, but it is one of the options listed by their site, so hopefully it would work. These are the two ideas I have off the top of my head. I can't say I endorse (or don't endorse) any of these sites/software, they just happen to be the ones I am familiar with. I think this could work for changes to a page, but not changes to a topic within a page. Thenub314 05:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much Thenub314, I will surely try this solution. Best regards, Andy --148.87.67.140 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'Simple English' Project closed but still visible with forged quote

I understand that the 'Simple English' project is closed and locked down. However its pages are still visible.

The Thomas Jefferson page (http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) contains a forged quotation about mob rule (see The Jefferson Encyclopedia). That entry should be removed from that page immediately (if not sooner).

I understand that this may be 'difficult' to reopen the page, edit, and re-close it again, but the issue strikes at the core of credibility of Wikiquote. --HKL47 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added this to the long list of statements in the "misattributed" section, of the Jefferson page, with the link you have provided, as well as note of it's apparent arrival circa 2004. I never had much enthusiasm or approval of the ideas involved in the Simple English Wikiquote project, but was not active in seeing it closed; but it is something of an embarrassment that many of its pages could be mistaken for pages of the active Wikiquote site; now that the project is actually dead, I do wish they would take it offline. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed an embarrassment that the defunct "Simple English Wikiquote" (which might more aptly have been named "Wikiparaphrase") continues to display the Wikiquote™ and Wikimedia™ logos and to occupy a subdomain within wikiquote.org nearly two years after the vote to close concluded. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any clear responsibility for anyone to clean up after a decision to close a project. Having locked it down, the developers consider the matter closed.[16] Unless somebody actually wants to adopt the project at the Incubator,[17] the foundation has no procedure for dealing with it.[18]

The ironic effect of this situation is that the more useless the content is, the more likely it is to be maintained in perpetuity, as some kind of monument to folly. There may be a certain wayward appeal in memorializing the explanation that what Jimbo meant by "access to the sum of all human knowledge" is to "find out what anyone else knows" (believe me, there are things I know that are best left unsaid), but it is just not a good idea.

Would there be any point in running an RFC at Meta asking the foundation to take it down, or at least delete the trademarks and remove it from the wikiquote.org domain? ~ Ningauble 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

general knowledge

which is the largest river bridge in the world —This unsigned comment is by Pradeep9695735835 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 October 2010.

Wikiquote is for quotes:

"Some of the rivers are only a few inches wide. I know a river that is only half-an-inch wide. I know because I measured it and sat beside it for a whole day. [...] Some of the bridges are made of wood, old and stained silver like rain, and some of the bridges are made of stone gathered from a great distance and built in the order of that distance, and some of the bridges are made of watermelon sugar. I like those bridges best."

— Richard Brautigan, In Watermelon Sugar (1968), Ch. 1

This is probably not the right place to find an answer to your question. ~ Ningauble 13:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Appel Quotes

Over the past few days I have been removing quotes of Jacob M. Appel from a large number of theme pages. Most of these quotes appear to have been contributed by a puppet ring, as described at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Checkuser request: Appelphilia, where I indicated my intention to remove them. Today an IP user from a dynamic address (173.244.219.133, ...140, ...154, ...159, ...161, ...172, ...173, ...176) has reverted most or all of these removals.

I am therefore requesting community comment on whether it is appropriate to keep or to remove these quotations. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Remove – I believe that these quotes are not suitable for a compendium of famous quotations, primarily because they are not widely quoted in noteworthy sources, and also because they do not appear to be the sort of particularly remarkable statements that will be widely quoted fifty or a hundred years hence. I do recognize that the latter reason is a matter of judgment, for what seems an unremarkable observation or a forgettable wisecrack to one person may seem like an unforgettable gem to another; however, given the pattern of behavior of the person(s) who contributed these items (and the relentlessness apparently espoused by the author[19]^{[citation not verified]}), I am skeptical about whether the Quotability of these remarks may not be the opinion of just one person or a small group. (Note also related remarks at Wikipedia about inflating this author's citability.) In the absence of evidence that individual quotes actually are widely quoted in noteworthy sources, I think a presumption that Wikiquote is only being used for promotion is justified in this case. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)