User talk:Ficaia

Welcome

Hello, Ficaia, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! 02:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)MathXplore (talk)

Intellectual disability

Hi Ficaia, thanks for starting the Intellectual disability article. As a precaution I moved the first quote to the talk page and explained there, see Talk:Intellectual disability. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your additions

Thank you for all your additions - it is great to see new pages continue to be created. One thing that I would ask is that you include a link to the appropriate Wikipedia page in the intro. I've been adding it to your new pages, but it would be helpful if you had it from the beginning. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Roger that Ficaia (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@UDScott, I personally would rather Ficaia was encouraged to create more pages rather than be tasked with routine stuff that can be easily added by others. How about suggesting this to good-faith newbies as ENWQ-training? It will free both you and Ficaia to do what you enjoy more, and it will introduce newbies to some sorely missing topics. A win-win?

Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech, not sure I understand your point, but if you are suggesting that it is not a good idea to educate users on some of the basics of pages simply because these tasks are easy and could be done by others - then no, I disagree. Why can't you do both? Encourage the creation of new pages, while also helping such users to create pages that don't require additional maintenance. I for one would rather spend my time elsewhere on the project than have to clean up pages, plus I believe it is better to have users learn rather than continue to repeat easily fixed omissions or errors. I also don't feel that my interaction with Ficaia was in any way discouraging them to continue to add pages (and in fact, we've both moved on and the issue I raised has been addressed). I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to comment on it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Amores_(Ovid)

Is there a reason for adding additional paragraphs between individual quotes? Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

For some articles I I think it looks nicer and helps distinguish the quotes Ficaia (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I don't personally like it very much, but you might want to clarify that kind of stuff with an invisible comment if there are reasons like that. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yiddish

I totally should put this in the Russian version. Stalin's after-WW2 purges were not as massive as those before the war, but still very damaging. Can you give a more extended quote though? I mean, why have 3 writers when we can probably have like, a dozen? --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot gain access to An Anthology of Modern Yiddish Poetry online. I merely copied the quote from Russia, where it had been posted by another editor. Ficaia (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Unauthorized postings to QOTD display pages

I had indicated I would accommodate the first two of your unauthorized postings into Quote of the Day display pages, as acceptable enough to retain for several reasons, and conceivably the product of ignorance rather than arrogant presumption, but your subsequent actions impel far less inclination to continued tolerance, and as I stated in response to your postings on my talk page, further unauthorized postings into the official Quote of the Day display pages prior to their entry into their protection ranges could properly be treated as acts of deliberate vandalism, and could result in temporary or even eventually, if they continue, an indefinite blocking of your account. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Unauthorised by whom, you? Ficaia (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Thank you for catching the incorrect revert I made. Ternera (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries Ficaia (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Poet pages

Thanks (as always) for your continued adding of new pages. These are very much appreciated. One request, however: on some of the pages, you have placed entire poems rather than a selection (or selected verses) from them. It is better to post just a few parts of a poem - the particularly memorable ones, rather than the entire work. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nigger (racial slur)

It's not just about the number of words. There is no need to quote an entire poem (as you did on this and other pages). A selection of the poem is sufficient. Wikisource is a better place for entire works. We aim to take selections of memorable quotes, not entire poems. This is a problem I mentioned in the comment above as well. It's not just about length of the quotes. To quote from Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, "Wikiquote is not a collection of public domain documents such as source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, whole books or whole poems." (It also states: "Wikiquote is not a compendium of song lyrics or entire poems...") Please reconsider your choices of placing entire works on pages here. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is only 240 words, and the stanzas are all pertinent to the theme. What does the fact that "it is an entire poem" have to do with it? Ficaia (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the aim of Wikiquote is to provide a selection of quotes from notable works or people - not to serve as a transcript or library of entire works. That is what Wikisource is for. In this case, the relevance to the page's theme is well established by having only a few stanzas, rather than the entire poem. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, each of the stanzas is quotable. And it's less words than the Gettysburg Address. It just looks longer because the lines are short. Ficaia (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hounding?

It appears that you have singled me out for hounding? Is this the case, and if so, why?

Hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. --ᘙ (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not hounding, it's clean-up. Consider the following: Cavalli-Sforza and his team state that “Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene [=10000 to 3 mya] southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene [=c 10000 to present]. The phylogeography [=neighbouring branches] of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggest that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools” -- this is dense academic prose, not a quote.

There's also a very serious bias issue with a lot of your 'quotes' being lengthy extracts from works promoting a fringe theory. Ficaia (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is hounding, you should stop stalking, it is censorship and vandalism when you are doing mass deletions over dozens of articles.

This is not the way to address problems.

Please start by discussing the problems of each quote on the talkpage. If you mass delete without explaining the reason for each quote it is impossible to fix issues.

There is also a cleanup and npov template that can be used if you have such concerns.

It is not true that all these quotes have the same problem.

Many of the removed quotes have no typos and are perfectly fine.

You also claim formatting problems, when the source and author name is given and they are well formatted.

You cannot just claim that dozens of quotes have formatting problems when it is not true, instead use cleanup templates and discussion pages, so that the problem for each quote is known.

Please read Achilles comment: (from Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli)

I disagree. Ideally most of the "Attributed" quotes in articles will eventually become "Sourced" to genuine documentation. If there are quotes that are commonly attributed to someone erroneously, these should be pointed out as "Misattributions" within Wikiquote articles, or on the talk pages, as has been done elsewhere, such as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, & Talk:John F. Kennedy. If anyone feels the selections that have been made are imbalanced, they should add some which provide greater balance, not remove genuine or attributed quotes they might simply feel to be "unrepresentative". I am now restoring some deletions that recently occurred ~ Achilles 10:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Achilles is saying that you can mark problems with templates or on the talkpage and that they will be fixed instead of mass deleting.

You previously complained that another admin allegedly "owns" wikiquote, but now it is you that is trying to "own" wikiquote.

You are above also admitting that you are removing quotes based on your perceived bias, because you don't like the alleged pov or opinion of quotes. The deleted quotes also have a wide variety of opinions and are not just about one topic or pov.

Wikiquote is not censored. BD2412 once said: "I am very certain, for example, that we include quotes criticizing religion that would be illegal to host in certain theocratic countries."

You have added a quote [1] promoting outdated racist, colonial views, which by modern scholars are considered fringe/dubious. You have added the said quote even though the quote does not even mention the Dasa (the subject of the article)!

I have noticed that you have started the mass deletions after I added a comment [2] about this particular edit. Further, you have also added an image of Sintasha archaeolgical culture [3] with a caption from the Ramayana, that makes it look as if the Ramayana author says that there is a relation of the Ramayana story with the Sintasha archaelogical culture. This is using images to promoting questionable views on archaeology, please name me one modern scholar that has written that the Ramayana story refers in any way to this particular archaeological culture. If you believe there is a bias issue then start with npov templates and talkpage discussion and add the quotes that show your pov that you believe is missing? You also seem to believe that every opinion different from colonial-era views on the Aryan invasion theory is "fringe", when this is simply not the case.

I have agreed with you in some cases when you have added specific explanations, such as the Parpola quote of academic prose, and many others, but if you mass delete without discussion and rationale for each quote, it is impossible to fix the issues. Also perhaps you should take a look at other articles like Free trade, Anarchism, Abortion, and many others to see that there are many articles with quotes that are academic prose. Academic prose in an article that about an academic topic must not always be an issue (although I have agreed with you that some of it should be reduced). --ᘙ (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"The other side of the coin is equally important. Before using hyperbolic pejoratives to describe how oppressive Indian society has been for ‘thousands of years’, and basing the most far-reaching policy prescriptions on that construction, should the judges, who quote a sentence or two from Manusmriti, not adduce evidence to establish, first, that the half a dozen verses that are cited again and again are representative of the work; second, that the smritis are intrinsic to Hinduism; third, that the kind of oppression and differentiation that these verses imply actually prevailed in practice?
Manusmriti is said to have been compiled over seven to eight hundred years. Which verse is authentic and which an interpolation? Second, what is the evidence that this text was in fact being lived out in practice? Even the ‘eminent historians’ who have built their careers on such assertions have not been able to point to any evidence that even vaguely suggests that Indian society was characterized by the tales of caste oppression that are their stock-in-trade.50 With these ‘historians’ unable to adduce any evidence to substantiate their assertions, on what do the judges base their characterizations? And yet, not only do our judges repeat the assertions, they do so in grandiloquent prose, and they base their policy prescriptions on those very assertions." -- this is not a quote; it is just a chunk of prose Ficaia (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I could go on ad nauseum. You also do not cite your sources properly. A blank url is not a source. Ficaia (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the articles you have created could be viable Wikiquote pages, but they have to be up to standard. Which is why I reverted them, rather than nominating them for deletion. You can easily recreate the articles, but you have to include only material which is quotable as English -- i.e. it has aesthetic or rhetorical value and is memorable. As a non-native English speaker I submit that you are not the best judge of this. Any factual details can be paraphrased in explanatory notes.

As to the quote you have a problem with, it was written by a 20th century expert in the field, and was in fact quoted by one of the sources you had originally included (we shouldn't have 'quotes inside quotes', unless the context is absolutely necessary). Ficaia (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after Tvebor added a link about the same "racist" views on Ancient India, you added the quote "promoting outdated racist, colonial views" as in Tvebor's link. Tvebor is the far-right, antisemitic, racist POV-pushing editor who has been adding offtopic external links to white supremacist websites. Adding such controversial material to thousands-years old religious texts of world religions seems to be a case where "context" is "absolutely necessary", see for example the discussion on Talk:Talmud_on_gentiles#NPOV. Apart from this, the quote was also offtopic as it did not mention the Dasa. --ᘙ (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority of quotes I added to theme articles are quotes that are quoted by somebody (X quoted by Y), although I have not always marked this, partly because another editor was against this practice of adding this bit of information. On wikiquote these are usually considered to be good enough to be quoted. You are being extremely strict on issues like formatting etc when across other wikiquote pages the culture is much less strict. (While not native-speaker, I have a good enough understanding to grasp if something is memorable and poignant, also note that in many of these articles, the persons quoted (like Vivekananda) are also not native speakers.) Really, if there is potential, why not just leave them in the article and add a cleanup template and a note on talk? Readers will still have the benefit of the quotes, know about the cleanup issue, and eventually it will be fixed by the readers. I have myself sometimes fixed such cleanup issues on other pages. I have also reduced the quote you mentioned just above to a more quotable and concise quote, if the quote it is too long then it can also be reduced to the essence of the quote. --ᘙ (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, obviously you have introduced some interesting quotes over the years, and thank you for that. But if material is not ready for mainspace, it should be worked on elsewhere. Otherwise you are just making a mountain of tedious work for others. Ficaia (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It is also often subjective if a quote is quotable, and when you are removing that many quotes based on your extremely strict criteria, while wikiquote practice and guidelines are much more lenient, then it would be better to first add a cleanup template on the pages with a note on talk. --ᘙ (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Leaving quotability aside, the material is not ready for mainspace. There are many, many typos and quotes are not cited properly. I have said all this before.

I am facilitating your future work and acknowledging what good you have done by fixing dozens of your quotes, preserving pages where possible, and moving everything not up to standard over to talk pages so you or others can work through it there. But I can't go through everything with a fine-tooth comb. Ficaia (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I had to revert again some of your mass deletions, because the quotes were not moved to the talkpage. If the whole article is deleted and you blank the page , then you could add the quotes to the article talkpage where it is redirected. Otherwise, there is no way to review deletions. --ᘙ (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two other editors have problem with your contributions: see Talk:Indigenous Aryans. Ficaia (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting in theme articles

You have changed the sorting in many articles such that they are not sorted anymore by alphabet. But it is wikiquote practice for quotes to be sorted alphabetically. See here or the second last comment here, and this comment: I agree the particular quotes should not have been removed, but would note that the whole page needs a cleanup and the quotes and sections should be arranged chronologically, by the date of the sources, and not by "subject" to minimize the intrusion of imbalanced POVs. ~ Kalki 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) --ᘙ (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are exceptions for many historical topics: e.g. American Civil War and World War II, which have always been ordered chronologically. Ficaia (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The American Civil War page looks like a mess because of this. And World War II should probably be split into separate articles. It is the normal process on wikiquote, and if you change it, then probably it should have consensus on the talkpage, do you agree? --ᘙ (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

William Archibald Spooner article

Noticed on the New Pages list -- I can't believe WQ was missing an article about Spooner. Thanks so much for creating one! HouseOfChange (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Ficaia, I see you have been spending a lot of time trying to improve the quality ovf articles on enwq. This is awesome, but also a very difficult task to accomplish without angering many. The reason for the anger some may feel is caused by the fact that this wiki is still in flux with no firm rules for what is acceptable and what is not. See for example an old post I discovered at: User talk:Butwhatdoiknow#Reverts explained

I hope you don't mind me distracting you from your work? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to the United States, I've moved everything to the talk page, where you'll see that there are an unacceptable number of copy errors and incomplete references. I will return quotable content to the article gradually. Ficaia (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Curation required

I would suggest that you slow down a bit. If an article requires curation, then if you feel strongly about it you should do "the curating". What you seem to be busy at is at times nearly blanking an article summarily and hoping someone else comes back and cleans it up later. It starts to come off as reckless to take an article like Roman Empire and reduce it to a single quote, when it seems your intention is to simply move on to the next page and do similarly.

Today alone you seem to have been at this with something like two dozen different articles. That is not a pace that suggest you're carefully considering content and improving the article rather than merely removing content. For example, on Alice Bailey you removed some 150k of content, and moved on to the next article in under five minutes. That fairly strongly suggests you didn't take the time to even read what you were taking out. GMG^talk 12:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I read enough to see that the page was riddled with copy errors Ficaia (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You had three minutes from your previous edit on a different page. That is not "reading enough". We do not do the rapid fire mass removal of content based on a gut feeling. In case my polite phrasing wasn't clear, I'm telling you to stop. GMG^talk 13:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted on Alice Bailey as I admit I was a bit hasty there. I would point that everything is available on the respective talk pages. There is good material there, but no one has improved/trimmed it in years. Ficaia (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

And it's not a "gut feeling" to remove "quotes" like this: "Death from anorexia nervosa (AN) was recorded by both Lasegue (1873a,b) and Gull (1874), who first described it. In 1895, both Stephens and Marshall published postmortem finding in the Lancet for a 16-year-old and an 11-year-old patient respectively. In the last five decades there have been several reports of cases of AN with fatal outcomes and subsequent ausopsies (Siebenmann, 1955; Martin, 1955, 1958; Hack, 1959; Mosli, 1967; Chikasue et al., 1988). Gradually work began to be published which covered long observation periods and produced yet more mortality figures. In 1988 in Britain, Patton presented a study of a group of 460 consecutive patients with eating disorders covering the years from 1971-1981. These were divided into two groups for AN and bulimia nervosa (BN) with resulting crude mortality rates of 3.3 percent for the former and 3.1 percent for tha latter. He also carried out a critical evaluation of the methodological problems and the results obtained from earlier studies. Hsu et al. (1979) reported that more than 2 percent had died during an average follow-up period of 5.9 years; Isafer et al. (1985) gave a crude mortality rate of 8.2 percent with an average follow-up period of 12.5 years; and Theander (1985) a crude morality rate of 18 percent over 33 years. Even allowing for the differences in these data, it is clear that AN has the highest mortality rate of all the psychiatric illnesses (Licht et al., 1993)."

There are hundreds of thousands of words like this clogging up hundreds of articles. All the actual "quotes" are hidden underneath this mountain of boredom in the Bartlett's and Hoyt's subheadings. Ficaia (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that you remove quotes to the talk on a case-by-case basis, based on an individual evaluation, rather than removing an entire page and coming back hopefully at some point to restore them. There's no service to the reader if you're removing something like Rudyard Kipling as quoted in an independent source from Roman Empire, especially when you moved on to blank portions of three other pages within five minutes. You seem to have forgotten about many other pages you gave this treatment to, and the onus isn't on others to point out that you haven't revisited them, especially when operating that that level of volume and rapidity. You blanked Racial segregation yesterday and never revisited because you moved on to blanking a few minutes later. That's not constructive.

I recommend that you stop mass removing content until you've gone back and tidied up. GMG^talk 20:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

And what about Eating disorder? What exactly do you want me to leave in that article? Ficaia (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ficaia, I agree with you that your mass removal of dross has been a net positive. But I also agree with GMG that it would be better to pause such rapidfire and massive edits and start doing instead some of the curation that, as you point out, is needed. Reducing a major article to a tiny stub and leaving it that way is problematic. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that there are not more than a dozen editors actively committed to this project. This is why we have shit and piss smeared everywhere. Ficaia (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to join you in any effort to improve the project, but I object to criticism of other editors. Less heat and more light, catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, he who speaks less speaks better, and etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

To add to this - it's not that I disagree that there is much to work on, but your wholesale removal of all but a single quote on some pages is just leaving even more work for others to do. Perhaps you could pause the removal campaign and go back to the many pages you have already stripped and begin the process of restoring what is worth keeping? That would be greatly appreciated. Then you could begin anew, once these others are in better shape. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

Hello, I saw that you had removed the quotes I added to the Devil and Rape pages. I just want to ask why you made this change, and to these quotes specifically, as they weren't off-topic or overly long. CoolTechnicalRestrictions (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)