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.

---

Cite Q template

Please will an admin import w:Template:Cite Q, and the Lua modules it uses, from the English Wikipedia, so that it can be used here to cite works which are represented in Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done Saroj Uprety (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. {{Cite Q}} is now in use, for example, on Daniel Gooch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Split

Could an admin also please check if these templates Template:Split article and Template:Split have been correctly imported? Template:Split article does not seem to work correctly? thanks! pinging also @Saroj Uprety: who handled the last request.--ᘙ (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I imported the module related to the template. Please check if the template is working or not. Saroj Uprety (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. It works. --ᘙ (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, etc.) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no logged actions for more than 2 years):

1. Miszatomic (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Stanglavine (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stanglavine, Can you please explain why you are considering the removal of the admin designation from user:Miszatomic now. The policy you are referring to was adopted, you say, in 2013. So why the sudden interest in English Wikiquote (ENWQ) internal affairs?

I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors? If it is done in public will you notify us where this particular discussion regarding Miszatomic is taking place? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I doubt the stewards are singling out ENWQ. Removal of rights if an account is inactive as is good practice as having them is a security risk from a bad actor taking over. Its also not a stain against the user characters and if they wished to indicate that they would like to resume as an admin they would typically be welcomed back but there would probably need to be a certain level of activity seen first. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 17:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark, not so quick please.

Should Stewards be trusted to decide behind closed doors who gets to be an admin at Wikiquote? What do you know about @Stanglavine, the steward who started this topic but has not responded to my question posted 3 days ago even though they were pinged to this discussion?

Do we really want to trust users who are not part of this community and who are not accessible to us to make the right decisions? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the very nature of stewards: they are trusted with very broad rights across the entire scope of WMF wikis, but you're right that the extent to which they need to intervene largely depends on the extent to which there is a local community that is self-regulating. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Justin. And this is just a standard procedure probably agreed quite openly somewhere, the steward is being open about the upcoming de-sysop which is triggered by bots according to an algorithm. And this sort of monitoring is an extra burden the sysops here could likely do without and prefer to leave centrally. They are also needed to handle some cross-wiki abuse. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 22:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

None of what both of you have said so far answers any of my original questions addressed to @Stanglavine who is still MIA (missing in action)?

I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors? If it is done in public will you notify us where this particular discussion regarding User:Miszatomic is taking place?

btw I personally much rather have inactive admins than semi-active ones who undermine active content-builders, but I am wiling to listen to reason if anyone can convince me otherwise Ottawahitech (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consideration or discussion, in private nor in public, regarding User:Miszatomic. As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post to the community, this is a routine activity specified by established policy. It is nothing new or sudden, it as has been done periodically for previous inactive administrators at Wikiquote and elsewhere. The Stewards are simply carrying out the plain instructions of the policy, and giving public notice of what is happening. Miszatomic has ample opportunity to address the situation if desired. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ningauble

Re: As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post

which links are you referring to? There are 6 links in @Stanglavine post above.

Re" established policy

which established policy?

Re: it as has been done periodically for previous inactive administrators at Wikiquote

I have been here since 2020 and don't remember a similar post on the Village pump. Can you please link to all such notices for removal of admin rights of previous inactive administrators? (before and after 2020)

Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
@Ottawahitech: I'd suggest intentionally or not your probably beginning to try peoples patience with this thread. I think a number of people have spent their time coming to this thread to try to good faith give their best response and may like me think why did I bother?. We bother a little bit because you do a fair bit of good work on Wikiquote and we'd like to give you the time of day for that. But while not directly relevant this thread reminds me of painful AfD's on Wikipedia where one wishes someone (and that might arguaably include myself) had read w:WP:Don't bludgeon the process. Any putting bits in bold or shouting in capitals usually doesn't help anyone's case. Per that I'll soon start ignoring you completely or giving "." acknowledgement answers of having read you question. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 08:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech I don't want to be so aggressive, but some seemed a little hard to understand.
1.As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post
FWIW, Admin_activity_review is a global policy, if we do not have a local one, this is automatically active.
2.it as has been done periodically for previous inactive.....
Yup, please search the archive yourself, you may get some or none.
3.I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors?
Emmm, steward is globally, I believe even back to when User:Hasley has been elected as a steward, there is nothing called local steward. The consideration of steward regarding important issues are done privately, they have a group for private information on email list or IRC. If you are interested in steward's work, you can try to ask user:Vermont or user:Sotiale, they are nice and kind, IMO. Lemonaka (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to be a bit more clear. Ottawahitech, it would be helpful if you would stop assuming bad faith with topics like this. The policy, as well as this year's review, is public on Meta. It's linked in Stanglavine's message. Your assumption that there's some secret meeting of stewards to remove local admins is completely baseless and unhelpful in constructive dialogue. Vermont (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry @Vermont, I didn't find out that question is a trap. I used to believe ottawahitech is asking "Do stewards have a private group for communication?", But what they really intend to ask is "Do stewards have a secret meeting to do some bad things...." Oh, hell.... Lemonaka (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Vermont for supplying a link to the Global admin activity review policy.

I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, that:

• The maximum inactivity for admins at the English wikiquote (enwq) is defined as zero edits and zero admin actions in the last two years
• The Stewards conduct annual or semi-annual audits of all holders of enwq admin rights

If this is correct I wonder if members of the enwq community can have access to the detailed results of this audit?

In other words I believe this community should be made aware of the current activity level of all its administrators. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See Special:ListAdmins, and then click on contribs :-) Vermont (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

For specifics on which admins were identified in the review, see meta:Admin activity review/2022/Data. Vermont (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont/Meta:User:RAdimer-WMF:

Are the stewards planning an announcement on village-pumps across the wmf-verse about the upcoming elections and annual reconfirmation of stewads? Would it not be a good idea to encourage participation of all members of the wikimedia movement? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech For this object, you may contact @Zuz Lemonaka (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, a CentralNotice is created that appears on all wikis informing users of the election. Announcements on village pumps aren't necessary and I've never seen one before, so I don't see why this year would be different. --Ferien (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ferien. I have a couple of questions:

• who gets to see a CentralNotice?
• who decides what goes on a CentralNotice?
• how many CentralNotices can we have running on enwq simultaneously?
• how long does a CentralNotice run?
• can ordinary members of this community comment this process and if so where?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, I don't know, it's all controlled from meta. You will have to ask a Meta CentralNotice admin who will know a lot more about that kind of thing than me! Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I cannot. I am blocked on META. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, oh, perhaps m:CentralNotice and the pages linked to it will be able to answer your questions? I hope that helps, --Ferien (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien: Thank you for your continuing to provide information on the topic of The 2023 Steward elections, and addressing the concern regarding the CentralNotice that informs members of this community how they can participate in these elections.

Since I consider myself to be a member of this community in good standing I check the ongoings at the stewards elections periodically, even though I am not permitted to participate. I am surprised to see that you are the only member of ENWQ who is actively participating in these elections. There is only one other admin from this community who has voted "Remove" in the reconfirmation process, but it appears that other than the Russian Steward who resigned, all other Stewards will be passing with flying colors. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Fyi, TheresNoTime also resigned. --Ferien (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit of 73.168.254.34

This user was blocked on English Wikipedia for disruptive editing, I doubt that whether these additions are accurate or not? FWIW ,[1] Special:Diff/3227682 and so on. Lemonaka (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There would appear to be a major problem in general with block-evading non-collaborrating anon-IPs making (for practical purposes) unverifiable dialog changes in films/tv-series/video-games etc. Even blocked IP's from known sockpuppets are editing here with near immunity and sysops taking criticism it their unenviable task of having to deal with it. The edit you mention is trivial in my opinion in the grand order of thngs. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark Yes, that's why I'm sending this question to Village pump, some of these edits could not be verified on time. Previously I have caught some IP editors making these disruptive edits, then began vandalizing more aggressively. But if they don't be so aggressive, some minor hoaxes may never be caught by others. Lemonaka (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.

The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.

The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.

How to vote?

Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.

Who can vote?

The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.

What happens after the vote?

Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and close at 23.59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting closes soon on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

Voting closes on the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines at 23.59 UTC today, January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote. More information on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process is available in this previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to Religious-stub template

Notification: I am proposing a change to {{Religious-stub}} as it classifies people to which it is applied as a religious leader which gives a misleading impression in some cases. I am thinking particularly of cases such as Derek Malone-French (see history) and the martyr Claus Felbinger where leader perhaps gives a false impression though they may be thought of as a leader in a more abstract sense. The discussion is at Template talk:Religious-stub#Proposed fix to misleading usage of Religious-stub so feel free to contribute there (or suggest a better forum). Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 08:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Voting on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct is closed

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all. The (current) circa 90 exceptions here. I believe all on that list are in a deletion/move/mergeto process (or victims of a distributed transaction fail) and my basic intent is that they will get a sitelinked wikidata item if that process does not complete or is stalled. That UnconnectedPages(main) has always been a small proportion of the articles of Wikiquote, though it probably rose to over 1800 with the surge in #SheSaid articles at the beginning of December though this was resolved by the start of 2023 with about 1245 on the list from memory. While I was able to use some automation to resolve part of that at the start of January over 600 were resolved on an article by article basis. Connecting the Wikidata item for articles with an associated English Wikipedia article is trivially easy, and mostly takes under a minute for most cases unless there's an underlying discrepancy (e.g. bio article linked to disambiguation page). While most of the action for this has occurred on Wikidata a visible effect here is my decision to send articles to the VFD process when it seemed there was both a good reason to do so and I was not prepared to create a Wikidata item for them. I'd prefer the VFD list was under 40; not over 50 at a push; and certainly not over 60. Obviously I've pushed that up to circa 83. I was at one point thinking of deferring adding items to the VfD list. In weighed my priorities, difficulties if momentum of the reduction of hte Unconnected page list was lost and the painful though of getting back into it, the unexpected option of getting a relatively good run on the last part of that list meaning the endpoint was in sight. In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably and I wouldn't want to leave outstanding stuff on Wikiquote. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Djm-leighpark:

RE:

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all

What about other pages such as categories templates, etc?

Also, who will take care of new pages after you leave?

Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Broadly speaking that's up to the community, and remember most pages were sitelinked before I came here and up to recently many were sitelinked soon after being created. Any its almost a trivial case for any article that has an associated English Wikipedia item. The problems can get trickier if there is no associated English Wikipedia item. Over the past month I've been really hot on getting new articles sitelinked ASAP but that was only so I could really keep an eye on the Special:UnconnectedPages list. It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Re:

It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items.

Why not categories & templates? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not bovvered. Yes they it might be nice. So would sitting in the garden. Not a great time/effort/value and I've better things to do. Ask someone to write a bot about it if your that concerned. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably" Can you unpack that some? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I see my contribution pattern changing, I've been heavily on Wikiquote/wikidata but xxWP; commons and wikidata are my more natural home than WQ and I am minded I will be more active on those if I remain contributing on WMF wikis: there's reasons I may not and RL is one of a number of possible reasons. Regards -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Authority control

Now that this excellent milestone has been achieved, it would be good to consider making {{Authority control}} pull in its values from Wikidata, as it does on other projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term Authority control and the link Andy included above leads to 8 pages of what to me looks like gobbly-gook. Can anyone here enlighten me pease? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I've added {{Authority control}} added it to W.B. here and on simple. Whereas here I've had to set explicitly VIAF=46768718 on simple a load of identifiers have been picked up from Wikidata automatically with no effort on my part. I'm probably more used to the Gaelic Wikipedia where whole infobox grab stuff from Wikidata which help's even a simple stub sometimes look quite impressive for minimal effort. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am also not familiar with the following terms:

• W.B
• VIAF
• Load of identifiers
• infobox grab stuff
• simple stub (I think I understand wq-stub, but which stubs are simple and which ones are complex?)
• Gaelic Wikipedia (I assume it is a wikipedia in the Gaelic language?)

And only faintly acquainted with:

• WIKIDATA

Ottawahitech (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Okay. more fool me for wasting my time trying to give an example to you. I'll refrain from trying to assist you in future. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support: After casting a cold on this. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata

I have asked User:Mike Peel, who operaes a Wikidata (WD) BOT which currently adds new ENWP new articles to WD if we can have a similar service to add new ENWQ articles to WD. The answer I got was yes, conditonal on achieving consensus here. So, can we get support for this:

• ‘’Support Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support: With tentative concern to what the algorithm used is to avoid duplication and linking to the wrong wikidata item issues. My understanding is the enWP bot only works on curated pages (but that assumption is based on educated guess based on some observations). With most new wikiquote articles coming in (Q) that haave English wikipedia article (A), and {{Wikipedia}} template with no parameters so that the names (A) and (Q) are the same and the Wikidata item (I) associated with (A) is not already linked to another enWQ article (Q2) then sitelinking (I) to (Q) is almost always safe. The farther one gets away from that the more the risk of making an inappropriate link. Equally its possible to create a wikimedia list item/list of quotes for and Wikiquote article but they may then requite merge on Wikidata. But other nnWQ languages wikis may be using this form of bot already (eg Sweden?). The evidence of what I've been about in the field is available via my contributions on Wikidata. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Djm-leighpark: The setup would be a Wikidata game with potential matches (found through Wikidata search), like [2], which the bot would fill in daily. Then unmatched pages would have new items created for them. For Wikipedia, the bot also matches up articles about humans using birth/death dates etc., but I don't think that makes sense here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Mike Peel: Thanks for that. By the way the link you are supplying is currently reporting to me: "The distributed game: This game has produced an error. Maybe talk to Mike Peel about that? New Wikipedia article and category matches Match new Wikipedia articles and categories with Wikidata items, and add the sitelink to Wikidata. Pi bot is thinking about creating new items for these articles, but first it wants your help to match them to existing items. If the match is right, please add the link to Wikidata using "Match". If it is clearly wrong, select "No". If you are not sure, press "Skip". Bug reports and feedback should be sent to User:Mike_Peel. Entry type :. It is remotely possible my indef block on the enWP may be a contributor to that error message. An an aside I've been sitelinking new stuff as it comes through at the moment; mainly to keep the UnconnectedPages/main length stable and not get away (Approx 10 on it relate to newer articles in a deletion process and about 50 historic limbo'd in deletion processes, but I don't anticipate circumstances leading me to doing that for much longer, and it was only an RL event that leaves me active here at the moment). A few final questions: Does this game require manual intervention or is it automatic? And would it have handled Special:Diff/1832129143 linking (w:Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google) ? And am I correct in saying English Wikipedia articles are not sitelinked until currated, unless done so manually, which is do a degree consistent someone manually sitelinking at this enWP AfD. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    • • @Djm-leighpark: I saw the error as soon as I'd posted the link here ... sorry about that, it's now fixed (had to update it from python2 to python3). I forgot to mention that it should avoid pages marked for deletion (by avoiding specific templates - would have to double-check that list for this wiki). The game automatically gets new tiles, but requires manual yes/no decisions. The script just runs a search on Wikidata, you can test specific cases just by using search yourself. At the moment the code does create new items after 14 days, regardless of matches, but I plan to change that soon so it requires decisions through the game first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mike Peel: You game player you! Yes looks better albeit I'm not played it but it looks playable. This gameplay stuff is all right its all right, and when it wrong then its very wrong! (Quoting: Farmer A. in South Sligo with "intensive famring" replaced by AI/SANS/Caching/Bitcoin etc). Some techniques for viewing articles in the deletion process are embedded here if it helps: [3] (it misses mergeto's with is a TBD) but primary documentation would be better for you. I'm a gui-avoiding Luddite at heart yearning for an 80-column card punch and paper tape to cut my fingers on. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support It works really well on simplewiki, and I think it'd work really well here as well. --Ferien (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: @Mike Peel. I'm still currently working actively manually ensuring new articles are linked to Wikidata items as they come providing they are not deletion process candidates, but my doing so may reduce the number of cases your BOT will have to work on. If it would be helpful at any time for me to stop doing this to allow cases for your BOT to process please don't hesitate to let me know. In the absence of such a request I'm reluctant to back off doing this especially as that list remains long partially due to failure to process the deletion lists in a timely manner for pre-2023 articles (If anything survives a VfD I'll create a wikidata item for it but some cases can be more complex to create a non-trivial wikidata item for). -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Djm-leighpark: Keep it up, and thanks for the work! If we move forward with this, we can figure out a transition, e.g., through the suggested Game. But until there's consensus here, I don't want to start setting things up. (& please keep pinging me, since I'm not often on this wiki, but I get cross-wiki notifications.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: Okay. People have been actively creating new articles today and I have 33 to deal with by towards day-end. Luckily I(well my alt Deirge) has a program "Lollypop2" that can deal with a feed of simple cases via Quickstatements and this sorted 31 of 33, with Marad Massacre and Robert de Nobili needing to be dealt with manually as Lollypop2 does deal with {{Wikipedia}} pointing to an enWP redirect. By by the time I used it 4 more new articles appeared and I dealt with those manually, Lollypop2 only becomes efficient for batches of over 10. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Steward elections CentralNotice

Am I the only member in good standing in this community who does not see a CentralNotice about the Steward elections which opened on February 5, I think? Anyone else not getting notified?

See more Ottawahitech (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, I have not seen a CentralNotice about it either, not here nor on any other project. --Ferien (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Can you take a look at these messages about the Steward elections campaign? Thank you, DerHexer (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ottawahitech and @Ferien, thanks for the report! This is interesting. I double checked the banner configuration, and it seems to be correct. I also see the banner myself routinely across projects. There is also another set of campaigns ongoing (community wishlist and Wiki loves monuments), so the steward elections one might simply have less chances to appear, too.

By any chance, is it possible that you disabled some/all banners in your preferences? If not, would it be possible for you to check browser console (Ctrl+Shift+I) and see if the output mentions anything about a banner?

Have a great day, Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec, I do not get a CentralNotice on ENWQ of any of the campaigns you mentioned:

• community wishlist
• Wiki loves monuments
• steward elections

I did get the one about Shesaid a couple of months ago.

I have not checked to see if I get this notice on any other wmf-project. I suspect I do not, probably because I am blocked on META. But @Ferien is not - so why is ferien not getting a CentralNotice?

Thank you for checking this issue, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec, thanks for your reply, all banners are enabled in my preferences and I can't see anything about banners in the console. --Ferien (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Global bans are a dime a dozen. Just curious why you picked User: PlanespotterA320 in particular. Who/what is RespectCE?

Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sockpuppet of PlanespotterA320. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sock of PlanespotterA320, and one of the reasons for global ban. Regards. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for for risto hot sir?

Thanks @Ferien, @Lemonaka I did not know that an RFC is required before locking globally. I believe both of you only started getting active here at ENWQ after the big dust up in 2020 (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)) regarding User: Babe Kebabe User:Babe kebab (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)) who was accused of being a sock of User: risto hot sir. Can you speculate why there was no RFC held on META before risto was globally locked? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, there's a difference between global locks and global bans in policy, although it appears the line between them has been more blurry recently. The reasons for global locks on request are relatively uncontroversial: clear vandalism-only/spam-only accounts, or extensive sockpuppetry. Anything that is less uncontroversial than that requires a RfC global ban proposal on Meta. While I am not familiar with Risto hot sir and the circumstances surrounding their lock, this may have been one of those cases where a global lock was not appropriate and a global ban proposal would have been preferable. I remember talking to you before about ILMD and how they were globally locked inappropriately (User talk:Ilovemydoodle#Block). The same thing happened with Eaglestorm but I requested they be unlocked (this also took way too long with little to no communication from the locking steward). Tbh I have been very disappointed recently with stewards using their tools to extend an indefinite block into a global lock for no reason with little to no consultation from the community and not responding to any concerns the local community has. This is a recurring issue, with multiple stewards, even getting to the point where stewards are locking accounts for minor username problems now. But IAR to protect a couple of other local projects I guess?... :/ --Ferien (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien: User: risto hot sir made 39,148 contributions to ENwQ before they were blocked. How can anyone consider this global lock to be uncontroversial? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there were sockpuppetry issues? I wasn't around at that time, and that is what I've heard in the past. Personally, I never interacted with or saw the user around so I can't comment on whether they should be globally locked or not. --Ferien (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien, risto was globally-locked here. User: Praxidicae, a global-sysop, instigated this action saying:

Risto is a disruptive editor, blocked indefinitely on several projects for a combination of things including competency issues, self-promoting, socking and lacking in the ability to collaborate.

Another global-sysop, who now uses a different userID, endorsed this global-lock and added:

I will support even a global ban as his activities crosswiki are a net negative to Wikimedia on a whole

User:Wim b, a Steward, locked risto with no explanation.

This clearly should have been handed through an RFC, not merely rubber-stamped by a Steward. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech Hello. For appealing a global lock, you should appeal it to stewards group. If someone is global lock, they could not be global banned because you cannot execute somebody by firing squad twice. If you believe there is something wrong, please appeal to stewards directly, we cannot revert stewards action.
PlanespotterA320's lock from AmandaNP was reverted by appealing from local community trusted members, if you really think so, you can have a try. Lemonaka (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Global sysops cannot endorsed global-lock, this right was only held by WMF staff and stewards. Although, ehhh, maybe long long ago, global sysop can endorse global lock but now they cannot. I have forwarded this discussion to Vermont. Lemonaka (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ottawahitech, Risto hot sir engaged in a pattern of abuse on dozens of small projects, being blocked on a good number of them. He refused to stop, and created a second account to continue editing on the projects which he was blocked. That was pretty clear cross-wiki abuse with multiple accounts, and necessitated a global lock. At this point, he's created dozens of accounts to evade the blocks and is very far from being able to appeal. Vermont (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont: Can you please tell us which of the following items were used by user: Wim b, who is an experienced Steward as the reason to globally lock risto?:

Reasons to request a global lock

The following is a list of common reasons for global locks. As a general rule, global locks happen almost always in clear-cut situations. There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.

1. Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active.Accounts whose only intent is to spam on Wikimedia wikis.
2. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well.
3. Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them
4. Accounts that are suspected to have been compromised, as a temporary measure to maintain account security until the owner is contacted.
5. Accounts that have been globally banned (community or Foundation).
6. Accounts that have been created to evade a global ban (community or Foundation).
7. Accounts whose owners are known to be deceased.
8. Accounts belonging to former Wikimedia Foundation staff members or contractors (done by WMF staff).

Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech, this is according to #1 and #3 Lemonaka (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ottawahitech, to note, this is a list of reasons to request a lock. It is not a limited list of reasons to make locks. However, Risto was locked for cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppetry, which pretty easily falls under 1 and 3. Vermont (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

When do we finally see examples of their disruptive edits, abuse and sockpuppetry? Where's the motive? - to make about 100,000 useful, unreverted contributions to damage the project!--Ila Dee Dali (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct revised enforcement guidelines vote results

The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.

After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon.

From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

question about a template

do you(en.wikiquote) have a template that about marking wikiquote articles with "this article dominantly has quotes about one side idea"(my english is bad, sorrry)? i think mass filling articles with quotes like that is breaking neutrality. Modern primat (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Npov}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf how about articles that just contain 2 or 1 quotes? Modern primat (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I'd go {{expand}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Justin on {{expand}}. My personal view on Wikiquote is there is no requirement for neutrality in quotes made by a person, but there is need for neutrality and balance in the lead section; and the best thing for anything controversial is to have an article on the English Wikipedia where there are resources to deal to neutrality. I'd generally mostly consider using {{npov}} where there is a significant concern in that area and the article may be edging deliberately or by good faith accident into an attack page. However @Modern primat I have reviewed your contributions on other wiki's and have concerns you may be heading into areas that have caused you issues before, so while we appreciate your contributions here I suggest you already are fully aware of those issues and you may be aiming to perform a mass tagging operation which is may well prove to be disruptive. So I urge you to be very, very cautious. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Having said that about {{expand}} is should be fairly obvious is in most cases expansion is useful and its probably unnecessary in most cases and more unhelpful than helpful. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this question @Modern primat. I am often looking for a template which is hard to locate in Category:Templates. I also wonder if there is any point in adding a template such as {{Npov}} to a page. See for example Talk:New York Post which was tagged with this template back in 2010, but has drawn no comments other than the original OP. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Community feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of use starts

Hi everyone,

This February 2023 the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is planning to host a feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use (ToU) from February, 21 to April 2023. Full information has been published here.

The Terms of Use are the legal terms that govern the use of websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. We will be gathering your feedback on a draft proposal from February through April. The draft has been translated into several languages, with feedback accepted in any language.

This update comes in response to several things:

1. Implementing the Universal Code of Conduct
2. Updating project text to the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (CC 4.0)
3. A proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
4. Bringing our terms in line with current and recently passed laws affecting the Foundation including the European Digital Services Act

Regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and its enforcement guidelines, we are instructed to ensure that the ToU include it in some form.

Regarding CC 4.0, the communities had determined as the result of a 2016 consultation that the projects should upgrade the main license for hosted text from the current CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0. We’re excited to be able to put that into effect, which will open up the projects to receiving a great deal of already existing CC BY-SA 4.0 text and improve reuse and remixing of project content going forward.

Regarding the proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing, the Foundation intends to strengthen its tools to support existing community policies against marketing companies engaged in systematic, undisclosed paid editing campaigns.

Finally, regarding new laws, the last ToU update was in 2015, and that update was a single item regarding paid editing. The last thorough revision was in 2012. While the law affecting hosting providers has held steady for some time, with the recent passage of the EU’s Digital Services Act, we are seeing more significant changes in the legal obligations for companies like the Foundation that host large websites. So with a decade behind us and the laws affecting website hosts soon changing, we think it’s a good time to revisit the ToU and update them to bring them up to current legal precedents and standards.

See the page on Meta to get all the information.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 1 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 1 March 2023.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (Discussion) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Reminder: Office hours about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This a reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is hosting office hours with community members about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

The office hours will be held today, March 2, from 17:00 UTC to 18:30 UTC. See for more details here on Meta.

Another office hours will be held on April 4.

We hereby kindly invite you to participate in the discussion. Please note that this meeting will be held in English language and led by the members of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, who will take and answer your questions. Facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance Team will provide the necessary assistance and other meeting-related services.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for adminship by Lemonaka

Just to let those interested know that Lemonaka has requested admin tools. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech Thanks for your noticement Lemonaka (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparent Anti-Semitism on "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" page

Hi, I would like to inform Wikiquote about a page that appears to have been created with Anti-Semitic intent. That page is the page about "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" (or "Protocols" for short), a well-known hoax written in Russia during the 1900s that purports to be the secret plans of the Jews to take over the world. This hoax is infamous as it was promoted by the Nazis as supposed "proof" that the Jews are evil and needed to be exterminated, which in turn lead to the Holocaust where over 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. This page was created by the user "MusenInvincible", who in his latest edit to the page, greatly expanded it and added several quotes from the Protocols themselves and from some other sources. An interesting to note here is that all the quotes from the other sources from other Anti-Semitic works which discuss the Protocols, all of which despite the evidence, falsely claim that the Protocols are genuine. MusenInvincible also added some images to the page, including some rather unusual ones, such the flag of the United Nations (UN), the seal of the American CIA and a portrait of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. In some of the quotes for the Protocols themselves, MusenInvincible links to pages that when combined with the images mentioned, imply that the Jews created television, the UN, the CIA, and Protestantism, caused the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and hijacked other governments, culturally, financially and politically. All as part the supposed "plot" by the Jews to take over the world. The user "Philip Cross" had gotten some of the quotes from other works but didn't seem to take a closer look at the page itself. I've tried adding quotes that proved that the Protocols are fake and why they were popular but the word filter removed them for the reason labelled "GRP" which doesn't really explain what I did wrong. One last thing, MusenInvincible is editing other pages to place Anti-Semitic quotes (including some from the Protocols) on them, such as this example linked here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=War&diff=prev&oldid=3244582. I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them. I would also recommend that the page on the Protocols add some more quotes (including the ones I tried adding) that show that it's a hoax. Thanks in advance. 109.76.97.207 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them." I have a better suggestion: invite MusenInvincible to this conversation, and ask them to explain their motives. Do the same for Philip Cross. Here is a link to MusenInvincible's talk page, and here is one to Philip Cross' talk page. I would suggest that you add a message to both pages, informing them about the conversation that is taking place here on the Village pump page, encouraging them to take part in the conversation, and assuming good faith.

I have another suggestion as well: that you make a user for yourself. That will make it easier for other users to contact you and collaborate with you. Furthermore, it may prevent the strange "GRP" error you were encountering earlier. I am not sure what may have caused it, but I speculate that it may be due to Wikiquote's spam filter, which could have been triggered for reasons unknown. If you register a user and it reaches autoconfirmed status after a couple of days, the spam filter will be less suspicious of you, and hence you should have an easier time contributing in good faith.

With regard to the Protocols page, let me offer a few opinions. I think the best approach to take with regard to such a work is a scholarly attitude, with emphasis on factuality and sources. For example, what are some of the theories on how the text came into being? What is the scholarly consensus with regards to the origins of the work, and what are some books and articles where scholarly and well-sourced opinions can be found? A scholarly attitude here means that we concern ourselves with the facts of the matter about the text, without buying into the antisemitic tropes that the text itself espouses. It means that we study the ideology without becoming ideologically possessed.

There are other issues that may be discussed, such as the use of images and links. The Protocols talk page would be a good place for a discussion about what the Protocols page ought to be and how it should be structured. One main benefit of having a page for Protocols is that every quote from the text can be collected in one place: on that page. Since the text is in all likelihood a forgery, it cannot be used as the source for anything, and so one should, I think, avoid quoting it on other pages.

That is all I can offer in terms of advice and opinions on this topic. I have not myself contributed to the Protocols page, and I have no immediate plans of doing so. The text does not interest me much because it is in all likelihood a forgery, and as such, I cannot take it seriously. The only thing I can take seriously is scholarly perspectives about the text. If such perspectives are contributed to the Protocols page, I think it would greatly improve the quality of the page. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You are both quite correct in pointing to problems with this page. I have cut down the number of quotes from Henry Ford in the past, and now added the second paragraph from the Wikipedia article's introduction and removed some of inappropriate display quotes. It is a repellant article and difficult to work on. Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Before I came here the first time, I did try to edit the page in question to add quotes that showed the Protocols are fake as well as some explaining why the conspiracy theory became popular (and also replacing some of the image captions to include the new quotes), but the edit filter messed it all up. I looked at the page's "Abuse filter log" and my edits seems to be there. Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include "scholarly perspectives about the text", one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum. I basically took the quotes from sources used on enwiki to start the improvement of the page. Philip Cross is already here so there's no need to contact him but I'll contact right MusenInvincible now. Thanks again. --109.76.97.207 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include 'scholarly perspectives about the text', one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum." Right, and this is commendable, in the same way that Philip Cross' efforts to clean up the page are commendable. Of course, there is a great irony in the fact that your good-faith contributions were the ones to get censored by the filter. In any case, I think you will have an easier time working with difficult topics if you register a user for yourself. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's done now.--109.76.97.207 22:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Listings on the home page

Considering that the Main_Page has had a daily average of 5,743 views(!) in the past 90 days == it seems there should be a push here to feature articles which are most likely to be of interest to readers & a service to the world community, rather than the opposite (ones that are very unlikely to be of interest)? What do you think? 70.57.88.29 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Did you have any ones in mind? And how is this related to listing new pages? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Justin(koavf) for your reply. Seems to me that it would behoove WQ to aim to frequently feature bright, living people - favoring females in general (in accordance with recommendations of the Wikimedia foundation '...closing the gender gap' ). Notable of course, but also when possible arguably, heroic women (and men) who are known for their integrity - whose quotes/ideas are most likely to stimulate/inspire the readers.>
Re your question: How is this related to listing new pages? Sorry I'm not sure of what you mean. On the /Main_Page, as you can see there are ~14 new pages & one of them is featured with an image - at the moment it is Peng Dehuai (A Chinese communist military leader who passed in 1974).
Featuring someone like Alice Phoebe Lou - might interest many of the almost 6,000 people who visit that main page daily.
Do you have any pages in mind? Thoughts? 70.57.88.29 20:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Newcomer

I am new to wikiquote, to any admin, please give me an insight on how I can contribute efficiently and what I should do next to help out the community. Thx 2601:5C7:4100:3600:6D6C:55DB:3DE9:DB22 01:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)