User talk:LrdChaos/2006

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


Hi LrdChaos/2006. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change to the Stephen King page. 'Salem's Lot is the proper title of the book, and it is the page on WP as well (although, if you leave it off, it will redirect there). ~ UDScott 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It looked a lot like a common mistake, so I just assumed it was wrong without checking. Thanks. —LrdChaos 21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! It's an easy-to-make mistake — I just happen to be a pretty big SK fan (and that's one of my favorites by him). It's short for Jerusalem's Lot, hence the 'Salem's Lot. ~ UDScott 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I saw that you merged one (of the many) individual South Park episode articles into the main one. Rather than copying and pasting the edit history onto the talk page of the target article, you could create a redirect at the original article to the specific subsection (e.g. #REDIRECT[[South Park#Episode]]). This complies with the GFDL, I believe. . Savidan 09:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that after I'd done the first one...initially, I thought that the old page would have been deleted, so I copied the edit history. Once I realized it would just be made a redirect, I didn't do it for the other page I merged. Next time I'll read the procedure before working on stuff. Thanks. —LrdChaos 16:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template

Your work on improvising a citation template for here is admirable, and it is used to good effect in the Susan Sontag page, but I would prefer that "<small> </small>" markup be placed around the ISBN number, as this makes it less intrusive, and it doesn't actually have to be read, simply clicked upon. I have usually done this when I have added ISBN numbers to a page. I might begin using the template myself, but I think it should remain a suggestion, and certainly not mandatory; it is hard enough getting some new users accustomed to the simple standard formatting that is employed on most pages. ~ Kalki 14:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and added <small></small> to the template. I don't have any strong feelings about its appearance (I just copied it from Wikipedia); I just figured it would be nice to have something to standardize at least some citations, which I've seen done in all sorts of wildly varying forms. —LrdChaos 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD nomination confusion

I want to apologize for adding yet another element of confusion to your VfD nominations. I had already nominated Basheer Ahmed, but had failed to add the {{vfd}} tag to the article (along with five other articles I'd nominated at the same time). This was an outrageous oversight of mine, so much so that I've moved all those incomplete nominations to the end of the list and shifted their close dates to provide a full 14 days from when they were finally tagged. I've merged your nomination into the earlier one as a vote with comments. I hope the two recent problems don't turn you off VfD! Your work is greatly appreciated. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just one of those weeks where all the strange stuff happens. It doesn't bother me much at all; yesterday, it seemed like UDScott and I were both keeping an eye on the recent changes, and had the same ideas to nominate stuff for deletion. The anon user deleting the votes is new to me, but not unexpected. As for this one, somewhere in the back of my head I thought I had seen it somewhere before, but just figured I was going crazy. Such is life, I suppose, and really, Wikipedia and Wikiquote are how I keep myself sane during long lulls at work, so I'm practically a captive audience anyway! —LrdChaos 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up line(s)

My understanding was that we prefered the singular to the plural. At least that is the case on Wikipedia. Does parallelism with the Wikipedia no longer retain any relevance? I don't get it. Savidan 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page should be "pick up lines" here because here it's a list of such lines (plural), while at Wikipedia, it's about the concept of a pick up line (singular). —LrdChaos 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop nomination

I've noticed that you've been doing quite a bit of article cleanup and maintenance work in your brief time thus far at Wikiquote. Are you also User:LrdChaos on Wikipedia? If so, I think your experience between the projects, added to your substantial contributions on Wikiquote, would make you a good candidate for sysop here. Please let me know if you are interested in becoming an admin. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, w:User:LrdChaos is also me. An incredibly large portion of my WP contributions are from the mostly-mindless task of stub-sorting, though there are plenty of actual "real" edits and such in there too (just for the sake of disclosure). I'd definitely be interested in becoming an admin, though. Thanks. —LrdChaos 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you! I've nominated you at WQ:RFA. Please post a quick note of acceptance at your earliest convenience. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you are now a administrator here. Welcome to the ranks of the Wikiquote sysops. ~ Kalki 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept my congrats from an inactive admin; welcome to the English Wikiquote admin team. It is great for me to see more and more good people care for Wikiquote. --Aphaia 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the fold, LrdChaos! At the very least, this should make anti-vandalism work easier. ☺ Feel free to ask me any questions, especially if you run into something here that varies from your experience at Wikipedia and would like a quick explanation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I went ahead and blocked this user for their spamming of the Help talk:Contents page. Usually, when a person adds spam such as this, it is an automatic blocking, rather than the usual series of warnings. The length of time may vary, depending on how often the user has done this. ~ UDScott 18:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind for next time. Thanks. —LrdChaos 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! You're doing an incredible job of patrolling, and I just wanted to pass on some advice I got when I was starting out. Keep up the great work! :-) ~ UDScott 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


LrdChaos, might I suggest using the {{unsigned2}} template instead of {{unsigned}} when adding missing signatures to postings? It provides both the time and username, which can be very important in untangling multiple and sometimes rapid-fire edits by non-signers. In case you're not familiar with it, its parameters are (time | username), which makes it easy to copy the history-page time/username line into the template, adding only a pipe (|) between the two, although one should adjust the time to UTC by adding or subtracting the hour difference from one's timezone and possibly adjust the date. (Surest way to do this is to temporarily change one's date/time preferences to UTC (0 offset) and reload the history.) Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know there was an {{unsigned2}} template. I'll try to remember to use that one from now on. —LrdChaos 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently copied it over from Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is too many quotes to merge the two pages. It's much easier to have a separate page for him. What needs to be done is a redirect, so that "Gregory House" goes to "Dr. Gregory House". Also, we need to weed out the redundant quotes that are on both pages, mainly any that are strictly "House" speaking from the "House (TV series)" page. They would be best be suited to his personal page. Bignole 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome assistance

Thank you very much for the help with welcome messages! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Case for Notability for Shawn Triscari

Sorry, about that. I will take note of that and thank you for telling me. I appreciate your kindness and I hope you have a good day. ~~~Your Friend, Shawn.Auraschild 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential impersonation

As you've been doing welcome patrol, you may have noticed a certain new user who chose a name similar to yours (created 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)). I won't name or link him because he might be waiting for such an easily detectable sign of attention to initiate the kind of vandalism other users with similar names have been known to perform. (See the MetaWiki info on this collection of users.) I was going to perma-block this and 2 other similar user IDs as recognized vandal handles, but none of them have actually done anything here yet. (The user-page manifesto from one of them I am ignoring for now based on basic free speech considerations for material not in direct violation of WQ policy, combined with not wanting to reward such nonsense with a reaction.) Instead, I am watching those users' contributions for signs of mischief. If they start acting up, I plan to respond quickly. However, since one name actually incorporates your distinctive user ID, I would be happy to block it if you wish on the basis of impersonation, due to the obvious attempt to mimic or mock your moniker. Let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you missed the vandalism (in this case, creation of nonsense pages with titles that were just long strings of a single letter repeated). UDScott and I picked up on pretty quickly and blocked the two users after deleting the vandalism. I intentionally skipped welcome messages for those two users, since it was after they'd been banned. —LrdChaos 02:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed I'm not surprised, either by the predictable vandalism (whose deleted pages don't show up in user contributions, of course), or my failure to see it happen, as I don't do RC patrol very often. I'm very grateful you, UDScott, and others are quite conscientious about that. The only reason I did a welcome for the first WoW was because it took my molasses brain several minutes to recall why that seemed so familiar. Maybe I should stick to {{test}} messages and Dear Newbie advice. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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




-- 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Wiggum

You recently suggested that Ralph's quote page be merged with the Simpsons main page. I think this is highly unwise and I suggest you rethink this for a moment. I am part of a massive wikiproject to clean up as well as expand the various Simpsons related articles on wikipedia...and I recently did a full blown rewrite and organization of Ralph's page. Originally, Ralph's page had an enormous problem because he is such a popular character...that visiting users multiple times on a daily basis added dozens of his famous quotes to the page...which congested the page terribly. I eventually decided to keep his 5 most well known lines, and transferred the rest to this wikiquote page...referring people to this separate page for more quotations. Its worked if this page is merged with the Simpsons that problem will begin all over again. Another potential problem is the Simpsons' main wikiquote page is extremely long and jam packed. I think trying to add all these quotes to that page will not only congest it and make it even more difficult to fix...but it will become very difficult for many people to browse such an enormous and hard to reference page and inevitably...Ralph's main profile will get yet another enormous influx of people adding endless amounts of his quotes.

I'm not suggesting that every character get their own wikiquote page...but I do believe there are exceptions that should be made. Characters like Ralph are pop culture mainstays...and as such they have so many memorable quotes that they warrent their own page because there's just too many. Thats why the Simpsons' main quote page here is so incredibly long...I think when a show has lasted as long as the Simpsons have there has to be some special actions taken. I implore you to reconsider this, it'll make things far more difficult for us and in the long run..for everyone referring to wiki articles. Checking the main Simpsons wikiquote page, you'll find that this is a huge problem. The only way to fix this is to separate these quotes in some way and this is a start. Otherwise...the page is nearly unviewable. I was going to start another separate wikiquote page for Clancy Wiggum because his page too many quotes now. I won't until this is resolved but please consider all this.-- 06:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there's a discussion taking place at the village pump about the best way to handle the page for The Simpsons due to its length. It's been suggested that, rather than have pages for individual characters, the Simpsons page be split into a page for each season, with each of those pages containing sections for the episodes in that season. The Ralph Wiggum quotes would then be merged into the appropriate episode sections on those pages. I think it's a good idea; certainly, it's better than pages for individual characters, because it allows for dialogue involving that character to appear alongside single quotes from just the character. —LrdChaos 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD help

Thanks for tackling some VFD closures and archives! I don't mind doing it, but I get nervous when any single Wikiquote activity is only done by a single editor. (I keep worrying that Kalki is going to get understandably tired of all the solo work on Main Page and QotD, too.) I also appreciate the {{vfd-kept}} template change. (We probably need to check to see if this may have broken some of the oddball entries, where a VfD entry has one name, but the subject article has another. I seem to recall this was what had stopped me from fixing this earlier.) I just made the same change to {{vfd-redirect}}, which is so new that I could easily verify its two uses still work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I figured that since I had a lot of spare time at work yesterday, and since there weren't any other admins hanging around during most of the day, it couldn't hurt for me to figure out the process for closing a VFD discussion. This way we can close VFD discussions even if you're out on vacation or something!
I decided to change the {{vfd-kept}} template because the main Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive page is getting way too large, and if there wasn't a need to load the whole thing, it's probably best avoided. We should probably also consider changing that page, because even on broadband, it takes a while to load, prompting Firefox to ask me if I want to kill any scripts that are running on the page. —LrdChaos 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The VFDA behemoth is one of many pressing issues we have. (Read Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion archive if you haven't already. The "latest" status is in "Converting VFDA to some kind of list", but most of the other topics include discussions of problems that are still relevant in trying to restructure VFDA.) I would have taken unilateral action on this long ago, except there are technical problems that don't become apparent until you actually try one of the possible restructurings. (Example: if we shift to the link system I describe in "Converting VFDA", we may have to manually change headings for each closed VFD entry from H2 to H3, adding yet another easily forgotten step to an already complex process.) Any process changes must account for the fact that we never have more than, say, 2-5 people nominating articles, 1-2 people closing them, and 1 person archiving them regularly. This process is already so difficult, and the community interest in maintenance activity so pathetically small, that it's hard to figure out changes that don't create even more barriers to participation. Your ideas are welcome. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Movies

Hello LrdChaos. I created the new quote page called Star Trek Movies because they are not part of the actual series. It has been suggested to create this section in the discussion pages of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. I started the switch over by creating the section, but there is still much to be done, such as changing links in other parts of wiki (most notably the various Star Trek movie articles in wikipedia) that currently go to the TOS quote page. If there is a controversy about this switch though, maybe I should hold off on the switch. CALQL8 02:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted one of my trademark overkill arguments about splitting this new article into 10 separate film articles on poor CALQL8's talk page. I hope I don't wind up scaring him/her off. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi LrdChaos, thanks for the welcome! I'm a regular at Wikipedia (w:User:Srikeit) & am just trying to start making contribs to the other wikis too. Having nearly 8500 edits in Wikipedia, it feels weird making your first edit all over again! Thanks again for the welcome, Cheers --Srikeit 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cornell

Alot of the quotes you moved from sourced, to unsourced come from the NYROCK interview and the other different sites I sourced out. To put them in the sourced section, will I need to put the source link under every single quote? I thought about doing that, but it looked really messy so I refrained and put the source under the last quote from that article. --InfernoVX 12:05, 04 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't exactly clear that the quotes had the same source. I don't think it's necessary to include all the information (URL, title, accessdate) from the template, but I do think that it would be a lot clearer that the quotes are sourced if you put at least the title of the source page (and perhaps the date) with the quotes, or at minimum, using "Ibid" (with the source fully listed at the top of the list for all the quotes from that source). —LrdChaos 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thank you for your kind message of welcome. Thank you friend. --Bhadani 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For welcome message. I'm usually giving them out on wikipedia - it made a nice change! Tyrenius 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your welcome.--Yoshi~ 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


hey!!!! thnks fr the welcome msg...

i just saw the things u'v been contributing to...its pretty neat!

hope to catch u sum wer on the site.. thnks again!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tulika 99 (talkcontribs) 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just Added Quotes

Hey i just added quotes to Kappa Mikey, Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, Wonder Showzen, Adventures Of Chico and Guapo, and Kyle XY. They were left with no quotes because i was trying to find them. Wait a little while before you add something to deletion. You can remove them now from the deletion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoid1 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the future, you should probably hold off on creating a page until you have at least one quote to put on it. Since this is Wikiquote, the whole point of this wiki is quotes, and a page without quotes is useless. I nominated all of those pages for deletion since we're not in the business of duplicating info found in Wikipedia (the intro) without adding something of our own (the quotes). —LrdChaos 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary from Wikipedia

Regarding your message to me about Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Sorry about not including an edit summary when I moved this from Wikipedia. The next time this occurs, should I cut and paste the edit history to the talk page (as you have done), or is there another procedure I should follow? -- MisterHand 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying it to the talk page is basically all that needs to be done; technically, there's a "formal" transwiki process, but hardly anyone ever follows it, and virtually no one copies over the edit history, which is something I'm just starting to make sure of (and remind people about). —LrdChaos 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! Thanks for the welcome, i'm a newbie here, and you give me some help, without my beg... Really thanks! :D


What is Wikiquote all about anyway???--Holy Macaroni 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the What is Wikiquote? page helpful, but the short version is like this: where Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, amassing facts and other verifiable information, Wikiquote does the same with quotes from famous and notable people. In effect, Wikiquote is aiming to be a freely-available and editable "book of quotations". —LrdChaos 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome.

Just curious, is that automated? Or did you notice me join? :) Steak 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The message isn't not automated (though sometimes I feel like a bot, doing the welcomes); there's a user creation log which shows newly-registered users; myself and others on the welcoming committee check it periodically and hand out welcome messages. —LrdChaos 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vfd-kept template

I noticed that you subst'd the {{vfd-kept}} template for some articles. Might I suggest not doing this until we accomplish some major revisions to the VfD archive process? One of the reasons I've been using the template directly is to preserve links as we change the processes, as when you updated the template yourself to point to the newer VFDA subpages. Although this seems likely to be the main change, I've had enough experience with major policy and practice changes at Wikiquote to know I don't know half of the consequences of proposed and possible changes. So unless there's a compelling performance reason (which I don't see), I think it best we leave these as templates for now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought about that as I was doing it, which is why I didn't start to make a larger effort to subst the template. For the three pages I subst'd, I've reverted back to inclusion of the template. —LrdChaos 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you voted to delete the Hovind article. I cleaned it up would like to see if you would reconsider your vote. C56C 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nominations

Hello, thanks for letting me know about the proposals for deletion. As you probably know, I am new to Wikiquote, though I have 9000+ eidts to the English Wikipedia and a few other places like commons. It is possible those articles run afoul of convention here, I guess I can't be sure since I am new, but to me that seem relevant and appropriate. Thanks again for the notice. Johntex 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I believe both articles should stay, with one modification:
  1. I have now removed the Vince Young quote from the University of Texas at Austin article. You are right that he (at the time) was a student of UT, but did not directly mention UT in his quote.
  2. The quote by Kennedy absolutely is about college football, at least, the part of it I used here is. Sure, the whole speech is not about college football, but I don't see why that is relevant. This quote is making an analogy between college football and the moon landing. That seems very relevant.
  3. The quote by Vince Young is also about college football. It is true he uses the word "football" as opposed to "college football", but he was a college football player when he said it, and his fame today is still on the basis of being a college football player.
  4. The quote by Walter Cronkite is referring to "Hook 'em Horns" which is the slogan of the University of Texas at Austin. His broader context is speaking in general about the university, and was used in a commerical for the university. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to include it in an article about UT than it would be to start an article on the slogan specifically.
Thank you, Johntex 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help please

I noticed the RfD on Jim Shapiro had no close date. Who can add this? I am not an administrator, so I just added my comments. My spouse (dashiell) nominated it for deletion, but he is not an admin, either. Thanks.Jawesq 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, about my edit

I am new to Wikiquote. I did my best to follow the standard format of film articles on Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, but you marked it for cleanup. What did I do wrong so that I can avoid it next time - I'm adding quotes for another film right now. --Carth 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existenz is the new one. Is it OK?
Existenz looks good; the one thing about Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is that, in the Dialogue section, some, but not all, of the names are done in both bold and italic, where they should only be bolded, not italicized. Looking again, it's possible you could have meant to do it that way to indicate a flashback (which I still wouldn't italicize names for, just include a mention of it being a flashback at the top), but the "Teen" names are italicized in the "here and now" part too. It's a minor thing, to be sure, but it is rather visually obvious. —LrdChaos 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised the new article according to what I think is correct Wikiquote style. If it looks all right to you, please remove the templates. -- Cuppysfriend 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just cleaned up the page to the point where I felt I could remove the cleanup template (I added the stub template, because there's only one quote). Mainly, what I did was was to not use quotation marks, put the quote first and the citation second, remove the link to the obit (which didn't contain the quote, so there's no use in including it) and used the {{cite book}} template for the citation (though this last step is generally optional but appreciated). —LrdChaos 14:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the "cleanup," but, yes, the obit contained the quote, which is why Carroll cited it. The quote is on p. 3 of the online version. As for the quotation marks, I prefer not using them, but I thought that the style for "themes" was to use them. Didn't know about the "citebook" template. Will try to use it in future. Thanks. -- Cuppysfriend 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University VFD

I think you need to reconsider your Votes for deletion nomination of the Rutgers University Wikiquote article Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Rutgers_University, first re-reading the Wikiquote:Wikiquote article and realizing you jumped the gun by VfDing a page only minutes after it was started with no consideration that a.) it was a work in progress, and b.) it will be more than it appears, and c.) sometimes things interfere with the quick completion of one's work. —ExplorerCDT 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFDA situation

Welcome back, LrdChaos! I don't know if you've noticed yet, but we had a major crisis with WQ:VFDA while you were away. As a result, I've implemented an emergency work-around, where all new archived entries are being added to monthly pages listed in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log instead of WQ:VFDA. The emergency seems to have passed (my suspicion is a server configuration tweak, as the problem went away shortly after a brief period of Wikiquote unavailability), but the greater problem of the massive single archive page remains. The work-around is actually the first step in what I hope will be a major restructuring of our VfD process that should accomodate our level of activity here and move us a bit closer to Wikipedia practices (but avoid too much complication until we're ready for it). I hope you'll join the discussion, of course, but I wanted to give you a specific heads-up in case you decide to close some VfDs today. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard about that. In fact, I poked my head in a few times during last week, but didn't feel like getting involved in editing on my vacation. I'll read up on everything that's happened so far, and see if I can come up with any ideas. —LrdChaos 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! I don't know how much I'll be doing, I just couldn't stad to be looking at Might Guy any more. I'll do my best not to be trouble!


thanks for welcoming me. I feel that this sie is like wikipdia only with quotes. lol.Bye! -- Cute 1 4 u |talk to me 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou as well for the welcome! -JIMRH4

How do you think of the article I cleaned-up, Flight 29 Down? Just wondering.-- Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing, and I hope that you'll take this as constructive criticism, but it seems mostly like you've just expanded the page, rather than cleaning it up. There are two things I notice about your additions. One, they're arranged by character. While this may seem like a perfectly natural way to do it, and indeed, is how it's handled for films (with the exception of dialogue), for television shows, we prefer that it be arranged by episode, so that all of the quotes come with source information. (You can have a look at Futurama for an example of what I mean). The second thing is that you've put all the quotes in italics. Around here, italics are usually reserved for (in the case of films or TV shows) indicating an action or other unspoken part, or for bits where a language other than English is used.
That said, there are a lot of things at Wikiquote that can take some getting used to, formatting being one of the most major. If you stick around and keep editing (and I hope you do), you may want to have a look at Wikiquote:Templates, which gives a standard reference for different types of media. If it's not clear, and you're not sure how something should be done, feel free to ask me (or any of the other admins) and we can provide you with help or examples. —LrdChaos 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pkay I understand.Sepatrating by episodes should be easy since there's only 13 episodes (Season 2 is coming Sept. 9th, 2006).I'll do it in a few hours...busy with reality life.You're a great editor.Happy editing ! ~ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ~ 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


for your welcome. I have just come over from Wikiepdia, and am unsure where to start editing. Any suggestions? Is there any specific page that details how Wikiquote differs from Wikipedia, so I don't trip up? Dev920 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any page that details what's different between Wikiquote and Wikipedia, but the two major things are: 1) the subject matter, and 2) the size of the community. As the name suggests, we're all about quotes; we also have a much smaller community of active editors than Wikipedia, with maybe a dozen or so regular, long-term contributors (nearly all of whom are sysops).
In terms of resources, you might want to start with Wikiquote:About, which is a lot of links to other pages that you might find helpful. Once you start editing, you'll find Wikiquote:Templates helpful, as it provides format templates for creating or adding to articles.
Where to start? This really depends on you, and where your interests are (I find it's easier to work on things that I'm interested in). Look for a page for a person, film, show, etc. that you know, and get a feel for how things are laid out. If you have anything to add, or can provide a source for a previously-unsourced or attributed quote, you can add that. I got started here by reading through pages for TV shows I like and correcting obvious errors (like spelling).
There are also plenty of maintenance things that you might wish to attend to. There are lots of articles that don't have introductions, and plenty that , both minor and major.
If you have any other questions about Wikiquote in general, or about any specific bit of editing, or about why something was done, feel free to ask me, or to put the question on Wikiquote:Village pump, where other admins and editors can help out. —LrdChaos 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll get started in a bit - my eyesight is failing through much editing on Wikipedia...Dev920 16:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Days

I just created a new film page on Latter Days. I tried to follow the template and layout guidelines I could find: did I get it right? Dev920 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for talking some time in getting back to you on this. It looks good; I made a couple of changes, most notably moving the "Other" section above "Dialogue", but other than that the formatting looks good. —LrdChaos 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then, I'll get on with doing some more. Film-watching will never be the same again...Dev920 10:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom TOCs

I've removed the custom tables of contents you've made for a couple of pages. Custom tables of contents make editing an article much more complicated, so they should only be used where they're really necessary. Usually, this means that the default TOC has grown so long as to take up an inordinate amount of vertical space, and the custom TOC shrinks that. So, when a show only has one season, and only a few episodes, adding and maintaining the custom TOC is a lot of extra work for not much benefit. Another concern is creating custom TOCs for shows which are still on the air; when a new episode is aired, it's much more effort to update the custom TOC than it is to simply create the new section and have the TOC updated automatically. I know that you mean well, and appreciate your enthusiasm, but it's far easier for other editors (and even for you) to leave the table of contents alone until there's a need to put in a custom one. —LrdChaos 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.How many seasons should I have when I add the TOC? -- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a rule about what it takes for a custom TOC to be necessary; it's generally at the discretion of the editors, and depends on how many episodes are in each season. (For example, I created a custom TOC for MythBusters, which is still on the air, because the number of episodes, along with the subsections for each (for discrete parts of an episode) made the TOC huge.) For a normal show, I would expect that at least four or five full seasons (~20-25 episodes). And again, it's preferable that the show no longer be in production when adding a custom TOC, to ease the burden for editors unfamiliar with how the TOC works. —LrdChaos 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.Thanks.-- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (Christian) Bible as a source of quotations

Hi - you reverted my change to the list of people "commonly given credit for statements they are not known to have made." I added "The Bible" because I find that people commonly mis-attribute things to either the Bible or Shakespeare. I realize that it's not *an* author, but I do think it's a legitimate source and worthy of inclusion. Should it be in a list of its own? Jennifer Brooks 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a change to that section of the page, renaming it "Commonly misquoted" and creating subsections for people and books (which, at this point, contains only the Bible). When I removed it, it was entirely because of it not being a person. —LrdChaos 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for deleting this article. I'd just thought to create a manual "?action=edit" URL to bypass the wiki processes, but saw that you'd beaten to the deletion. Is that how you did it? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was able to use the normal "Delete" link to do it. It didn't appear that anything was out of th ordinary. —LrdChaos 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's possible it was an intermittent error, but I'm highly suspicious of such an error that only occurs for 1 article which happens to be about a vandal. I had been able to look at the article before I tried to delete it, but my second and later attempts failed. Oh, well. Thanks again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why you tagged the Flatliners page for cleanup, could you respond to this on the article's talk page. talk:Flatliners. Thanks -- Cbrown1023 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why you tagged the The Good Son (1993 film) page for cleanup, could you respond to this on the article's talk page, talk:The Good Son (1993 film), as is the custom. Thanks -- Cbrown1023 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Thanks for the welcome. Kedwikiq 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any strong feelings about this? I suppose the fellow is actually notable, but it does send an inconsistent message to have him creating his own page here (and apparently also his own WP article) when we're deleting lots of other people's vanity pages. I was inclined to VFD it but I saw that you had done some minor editing on it. 121a0012 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to jump in here. I happened to run across Newton Lee (and the namesake username) on Wikipedia and thought about flagging it for WP:AUTO attention. But I was intrigued by two things that set w:User:Newtonlee apart from the usual vanity editors. One, he sources his material. Two, his prose is remarkably neutral and devoid of opinion for a autobio writer. While we discourage editing articles about ourselves, there seems to be a reluctance (on WP, at least) to avoid banning it outright, so that people can make sourced-fact-based edits to their articles. I would be careful to check all the sources of anything our User:Newtonlee includes, and I might be tempted to remove the attributed quotes (Lee should know where he's quoted, after all, unless the quotes are unsourceable), but I'm tempted to give him some rope on this. There is also the consideration that User:Newtonlee may not actually be the subject of these articles, but I suspect that is not the case here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television shows

LrdChaos: I posted the below message to Jeffq's Talk page, and I wanted to get your thoughts on this as well. What do you think? ~ UDScott 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


We likely do not share the same views about abortion, but I would like to thank you for your comments on that page. I have bent over backwards to ensure the page treats all quotes even-handedly, regardless of the persepctive they represent. 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted misspelled tempate (sic)

Jeff, I've just deleted "Tempate:SD No content", as it's a misspelling, and already exists in the Template: namespace as Template:SD No content. They looked similar in substance (the example page names differed, but that appeared to be all), but you might just want to double check in case you changed anything between the 10th (when the correct template was created) and today. —LrdChaos (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this two-part mistake. I'd forgotten that I started with "no content" when creating these templates, and my all-too-frequent inability to spell "template" in the seach box prevented me from being reminded when I got to "no content" again in my progression through the SD cases. If there wasn't so much work to be done, I'd feel compelled to take a wiki-break. But I'm probably scheduled for one after the mass VfD closure party on 29 September. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars University

Aww I liked the business school quote =) 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD closure party

Since you and I seem to be doing most of the VfD closures these days, I wanted to check to see what your plans are for the imminent closure party that starts at 03:00 (UTC) on the 18th, and runs through at least 06:00, for a total of 39 entries (and a few more than that in total articles). Is there any particular time that you were planning to tackle any of these? I'm rather flexible in my WQ work, so I can do some while you aren't, and vice-versa. (Or I can do all of them, or you can do all of them, or another sysop can beat us to it — I have no preferences, so long as the job gets done.) If I don't hear from you sooner, I'll probably start on them not long after 03:00. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly be around to handle it, though I was mostly planning to wait until around 14:00/15:00 when I got into work tomorrow morning, but I can help out tonight. Breaking them down by closing time, it looks like four close at 3, four more at 3:30, nine at 4:00, seventeen at 5:00, and four at 6:00. If you intend to be around for the 5:00 and 6:00 closures, I'll take the 3:00-4:00 ones. —LrdChaos (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished closing and archiving up through the 04:00 closures; the rest are all yours, if you want them. If you don't get to them before 14:00/15:00, I'll start working on them then. —LrdChaos (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've finished up the second set, so we're done. I was thinking this would be good training for the 29 September closure party, but as folks seem to be reluctant to nominate during this closure-shortening phase-in, that one might not be as challenging as I had thought. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Zim

Hi, I noticed that you reverted an edit that I'd made on Invader Zim, and I'm just curious why. Was it bad that I made all the horizontal rule format lines "<hr width=50%/>"? I didn't see a difference between that and "<hr width="50%"/>" which was also used on that article, so I figured that I should make them all the same type. Is there anything wrong with that? MJMyers2 20:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a minor point, but the technically correct way (in HTML/XHTML) is to enclose everything after an equals sign in quotation marks (either double or single). I generally try to quote them when I make other changes, but since it doesn't have any visual impact in most/all browsers (which are generally lenient enough to understand) I haven't made it a crusade. It's probably something I should have explained, but I was in something of a rush at the time and the "revert" option was quick & easy. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if wanted to be obsessive compulsive, I should change them all to <hr width="50%"/>? :) MJMyers2 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were so inclined, that's what I'd recommend, though I don't recommend making edits that are only to do that. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for making some of the changes to the episode I made. I forgot to go through and look for grammer and spelling checks. Thanks. I was wondering though about still putting in the fact that GIR explodes after he is told to self-destruct. I know that it was implied, but the quote isn't specific about it.--Doughmuffins 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the rules

Read Wikiquote:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? and "Remember to check if anything links here". -- Zacheus 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are the same person as User:Guy Peters (you should at least make clear that you are, in fact, the same person, if this is the case), you should not be making changes to archived "Votes for deletion" discussions (per the red-colored text saying "Please do not modify it [the archived discussion"). —LrdChaos (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is none of your business, who am I, but you picked it right. You have no right to reveal my identity, that is why I deleted it. In case you will continue to reveal it I have ask for blocking you at Administrators' noticeboard.

I asked for deleting my talk page because of Google, otherwise I won't bothering with it. In case it will stay in the archived discussion it was useless. Could you please accept my point of view, at least for a while?

You don't need to repeat your text everywhere, I find them easily. -- Zacheus 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments, especially on my own Talk page. I am not trying to reveal your identity out of some malicious intent, I was simply trying to ascertain why certain content was being removed without sufficient explanation or context (which is quite often regarded as vandalism).
You ask to accept your point of view, but after all this, I still have no idea what it is. You tried to claim some "right to disappear from Google" in your most recent set of changes, but it's not clear from where you are getting this "right". No Wikiquote or Wikimedia policy that I am aware of provides users with the right to demand that all trace of them be removed from a project site (feel free to point me to such a policy if one exists). If there is some compelling reason that we should remove traces of your former username (which I assume is your real name) from the site, please share it with us, and we will consider that in decided what to do in the absence of a policy. Otherwise, it appears simply as though you are defying site policy (by changing/moving archived VFD discussions) for no real reason. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your gross negligance when you have twice revealed my real name. But when you did it for the third time, your malicious intent is clear. I have no other choice than ask admins to block you for preventing doing you this once again.

My explanation was fully sufficient. It was not my problem that you had not accept it because of your lack of knowledge of the rules: Wikiquote:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?, m:Changing username: "Signatures in talk pages can be changed manually if desired.", wikimedia:Privacy policy. Thus my right to disappear from here and this way from Google is common sense, not unilateral, and reason for this is very real as every Data Protection Officer knows. In my view such a person as you does not deserve to be a sysop, that's why I will ask others for your desysopping. -- Zacheus 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding some of the pages you are citing. "How do I delete my user and use talk pages" governs deletion of User: pages and User talk: pages; "Signatures may be changed..." indicates that you may change your user signature (that which is added when you use ~~~~ for old posts to your new username; m:Privacy policy seems to specifically refute your claims: "When you edit a page [...] you are identified publicly with that edit as its author", "Once created, user accounts will not be removed.", and "Whether specific user information is deleted is dependant on the deletion policies of the project that contains the information."
I fail to see how you think I am being malicious by revealing your real name. You registered the account with that username of your own free will, and you made edits to Wikiquote using that name. It is bad practice for any user to make edits to archived discussions, as you did; connecting such edits with your previous username is not malicious, it is explaining why your edits were not vandalism. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you desinterpret clear policies, try to enforce harsh rules with no important reason instead being nice to colleague, I see no usefulness to continue discussion with you. Instead I try to persuade the others. -- Zacheus 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


for the welcome. Snottygobble 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you so much. I wish I would have gotten this wleocme on Wikipedia. It would have saved me a lot of time. Thanks again Sweet Pinkette 02:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great company

It is wonderful to be welcomed to great company. Thanks. -- P.K.Niyogi 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No quotes on America?

re: Please stop adding quotes to pages without ensuring that the quote is adequately about the subject of the page. I have gone through and removed a number of quotes and pages which were created without any real connection between the quote and the subject; simply because a quote may mention a certain person or thing does not necessarily mean that the quote is about that person or thing. Furthermore, when adding quotes, please make sure that the quote is about the larger subject, not simply a particular initiative or bill confined to the state of Massachusetts. Wikiquote is not a place for trying to create a legacy for an outgoing governor. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how few topics there are in "Wikiquote"?

For instance, there are no quotes about, "America".

Do you really want to be considered relevant as an archive of quotes, when there are no quotes about America? I think you should be less conserned about removing quotes that you don't think are relevant (from an outgoing governor) than wiki-quotes becoming irrelevant.

Besides, Mitt Romney is not just an outgoing governor. He is a possible president in 2008. Some would say that the internet's most important job is to help people figure out who should be the next president of the united states. Why would you remove Mitt Romney's quotes about America? Wouldn't you want to know what an individual has to say about American, when the have the possiblitity of leading it? That makes me kind of mad that you removed it. Instead of removing it, why don't you help me? Why don't you help me find quotes from all the other possible presidentail candidates, and see what they have to say about these subjects?

Why just remove all of my additions? Why not wait a little bit, and try and discuss it? That is what the discussion page is for?

There are also no quotes on:

  • housing
  • jobs
  • families
  • bioterrorism preparedness
  • budget
  • integrity
  • sacrifice
  • civility

When you deleted my Romney quotes from these pages, you removed these pages? Do you really think that there should be no quotes on any of these subjects on wiki-quotes? Do you see anyone more important to hear from than our possible next president? Lets add quotes from Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and others on these pages, but lets not delete these pages enterely! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talkcontribs) 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for quotes about America, you might want to try the United States page; I had considered making "America" into a redirect to this, but America is more than just the US, despite common usage.
That makes sense... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talkcontribs) 00:13 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of subjects that Wikiquote presently does not have pages for; for example, there's no page for Organization, no page for sewing, no page for bowling. The list could go on and on forever.
Yeah, I think we should change that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talkcontribs) 00:13 15 October 2006 (UTC)
When adding quotes to Wikiquote, you need to look at what the subject of the quote is. For example, the statement "I believe that housing should be a fundamental right" is a quote about housing; something like "This bill will provide housing to more low-income families" is not. It's also not a quote about families; it's a quote about that specific bill, and it doesn't belong in a page about housing. Most of the quotes you added would make mention of a certain subject, but were not about it; instead, they were statements about specific actions that may or may not have involved a particular subject. For example, a large number of the quotes you added to the Business page regarding the giving of an award (that I believe is for being entrepreneurial and all that); the quotes were not about business, they were about an very specific business-related award.
In your opinion a quote that says, "This bill will provide housing to more low-income families" does not belong on wikiquote. In my opinion it does. There are no quotes on housing. I think the quality quotes should not be a concren. Any quotes are better than nothing. You should put the best quotes at the top. Text takes nothing to store. Why are you trying to save the internet from non-perfict quotes? Why not let others decide if a quote is good or not? Should I delete quotes that I don't like? Do we only save clever, or counter-intuitive quotes? You do not like quotes from politicians that outline the type of thinking they exhibit? You said the quotes tend to be Massachusetts centric. Look at what I'm trying to accomplish. I would like to vote on a candidate based on what they have said, instead of their 30 second TV commercial. I would like to be able to find everything a politician has said by subject. I want it to all be organized. Mitt Romney's quotes may be about Massachusetts, but that is the whole point. You try to figure out what he would do by what he did in Massachusetts.
I don't think that you are going to find very many clever-insitful, or funny quotes on housing. But the way I think wiki quotes should work is that everyone dumps there stuff on a page. When it gets too complicated to manage, people go in and clean it up. You put the good stuff at the top of the page, and you delete the bad stuff. Or instead of deleting it, you could put it in a catigory with other stuff you are not interested in finding. You are interested in finding stuff from thinkers. I am interested in finding position quotes from politicians. Can't we all just get along? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talkcontribs) 00:13 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You may think that Wikiquote should work a certain way (in your case, "everyone dumps there(sic) stuff on a page"), but it isn't. There simply aren't enough active editors around here to make that a remotely possible way of running Wikiquote, because there would just be a huge backlog of packages waiting for someone (who may know nothing about the person or topic of the page) to come to and refine. Much like the way that Wikipedia is not a place for each and every fact or bit of knowledge, Wikiquote is not a place for everything anyone has ever said; it would simply be unmanageable if that were the case.
As I've said before, Wikiquote has a global audience, not one limited to a specific U.S. state or even a specific country; as such, the quotes that we choose to display (again, not every quote that anyone has ever said) should, whenever possible, be relevant to the largest possible number of people. One state politician's quote about a specific piece of legislation is generally not noteworthy; a state politician conferring an award to a businessman (and a quote with little more information that that) even less so. That's the sort of quote that probably doesn't even matter to a significant portion of the state, let alone the entire U.S. or the world.
In the case of quotes about housing, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of clever or insightful quotes you could find about it. However, a politician simply saying that "I have worked for x" is not a good quote for Wikiquote; nor is something like "The Village at Marstons Mills represents a down payment on a more affordable future for Barnstable County." The next part of that quote is what the sort of thing that you ought to seek to add: "High-quality, affordable housing is just as important as top-notch schools, good jobs, a first-class infrastructure and safe neighborhoods." It has general appeal; it's not about a specific action or a specific community; and it's not simply a politician noting one of his achievements. Look at the type of quote you find on some of the other "good" pages here, and you'll probably notice that, in general, that is the type of quote you find. Especially for pages about themes, the quotes should be completely about the theme, not just indirectly connected to it. (In my example above, the "Village" part of the quote is first about the new housing development; the "High-quality, affordable housing" quote is first about housing.) —LrdChaos (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, nearly all of the quotes you added were very Massachusetts-centric, and many of them seem to have been Romney pointing to, as nearly all politicians do, the benefits of their actions. Wikiquote has a global audience, and the quotes that we present should be as universally relevant as possible. One of the quotes you used on the "budget" page was, in part, this: "I will present a balanced budget. And in case anybody has any other ideas, let me be clear about one more thing: I will not raise taxes." That is not a quote about budgets, it's a pledge from a governor, and not a very unique one at that. Most of the quotes that you added had a similar feel; they were so specific to the state of Massachusetts or to a particular issue in the state that they're completely meaningless to the majority of people who read Wikiquote.
Your point about Romey being a potential presidential candidate does not mean that any and all quotes from him should be added; look at the pages for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both of whom served as governors before being elected President. On Clinton's page, there are only three quotes from before his presidency; for Bush, there are a dozen, most of which are from 2000, during the actual campaign. There also aren't dozens of small pages on Wikiquote whose only contents are state-specific quotes by either of these two men.
When I deleted some of the pages you had created, it was not because I felt that Wikiquote should never have pages on the subject. On the contrary, I was surprised to find out that several of those pages did not exist prior to your creating them. I deleted the pages because their content had nothing to do with the subject of the page, as I explained above). The alternative was to simply edit the page to remove the quotes, leaving a blank, but created, page; functionally, these two situations are no different, but as a matter of policy we are able to speedy-delete blank pages, so it's preferred to have no page than a blank one in a case like this. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandals?

Hello! Thanks for welcoming me earlier, I've only just signed up with a formal account here. I have a quick question- what is the Wikiquote policy on somebody vandalising from an IP address? I just noticed Drawn Together had been blanked, and reverted it, but I'm not sure what is supposed to happen next. *scratches head* With a named user I'd guess hunting for vandal templates, but I'm not sure if that works if the person doesn't actually have an account. Morgrim 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The typical practice for warning vandals, whether they're registered or IP, is to add one of the appropriate user warning templates to their user talk page. Typically, for the first warning of vandalism, {{test}} (or {{test-n}}, which takes the vandalized page's name as a parameter) or {{test2}} (or {{test2-n}}) are appropriate, depending on the severity of the vandalism. I usually use {{test}} only when it seems like the edit was only a test edit (e.g., something like "can I add stuff here?") and use {{test2}}. If they continue to vandalize, go up to {{test3}} or {{test4}}, and if the vandalism is widespread and/or persistent, you can post it to the Administrators' noticeboard for further action. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess it's pretty obvious I've never done much recent change sweeping before. Morgrim 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD extension notices

I noticed your move of the Brad Simanek VfD, but was surprised to see the same close date — until I realized you'd added the extension notice to the bottom, and that the new close date has no time associated with it. I mention this because we've typically been posting the extensions immediately after or in place of the original closure time, where people expect to find the official time. (We've been pretty inconsistent about how we do this, but fairly consistent about where.) It's even more significant for very long discussions like this one. Might I ask you to move the new date to this position? Whatever your decision, please add a closure time. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to posting the extension notice at the bottom, I also changed the closing date on the "Vote closes" line. I didn't keep the original close date, though, so at a quick glance it might appear as though nothing changed. I've put back the original close date, and then struck it through, so that it's a little more clear what was changed. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LrdChaos, wouldn't this page be the same case as there is for McLeod's Daughters? The quotes placed here are again merely a reproduction of the IMDB's page for memorable quotes from this film? I was about to vfd tag it, based on the discussion for the TV show. ~ UDScott 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't happen to check IMDB for that one, I just slapped the tags on. Now that I check, it certainly does appear to simply be copied from IMDB. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now nominated it for deletion. Thanks for the heads up on that. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Randall

Bill Randall

He is not a friend but I have seen his artwork and heard him lecture. He merits inclusion. Please stop deleting.

[edit] Bill Randall

Please stop recreating this page and adding an entry for this person to List of people by name, unless you're able to explain who the person is and why they're notable for inclusion at Wikiquote. Wikiquote exists for collecting quotes from notable people and works, not personal quotes or quotes from a friend. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Randall (b. 1964-) Wisconsin is a visual artist currently living in Minneapolis, MN. He is referenced in who's who in American Art and has participated in over 20 group art exhibitions in museums and private galleries in the U.S. and Canada. He also has had two solo museum exhibitions and is in the collection of the Renwick gallery, New Visions Gallery, and the Elmhurst Art Museum.


Thanks for the welcome LrdChaos :) Very kind of you. The Halo 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Join wikiquote:Esperanza and help make wikiquote a more friendly place. It's already a succesful project at wikipedia and wikipedia simple english. If you want to learn more contact me at my talk page. Have a nice week and think about joining.--Sir James Paul 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about Esperanza

I agree with you that we do not have problems with vandalism, people being unfriendly, and people being lazzy yet but if we have wikiquote Esperanza these problems will not happen as quick. Another thing is that Esperanza will not only give people awards for furthering these causes but will also terminate the membership of people who vandaliz, are rude/blocked, and who are not active. These people will also go on a list. If a lot of members join this it will send a powerful message to rude members, vandals, and people who are lazzy. Another thing is that all I am is the interm president. Once we are able to have a election the members will vote for who they want as president and vice president.--Sir James Paul 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, I don't think that Esperanza is something that Wikiquote needs right now. For one thing, nearly all of the active members at Wikiquote (with a few exceptions) have sysop status. These are the people who would meet the requirements for Esperanza, and if the goals for membership are to be realized, then the project would need to have every one of those people interested. The end result is that you would have a mostly admin-specific project, and within that you would have some people ranking higher than others.
The current system in place right now works; without any projects or positions to be concerned about, it's much easier for everyone here to regard everyone else as equals. Once you start introducing a system of power, even if it's designed to be limited to a single project, as the only subproject at Wikiquote it would carry a disproportionate sense of power, if not for the person or people holding the positions, then for outsiders who are unfamiliar with Wikiquote and/or Esperanza. I fear that such a project might be regarded (again, perhaps not by "insiders" but by "outsiders") as a de facto ruling structure.
As another user summed it up in the VFD discussion (at least, in their edit summary), Esperanza is a solution without a problem. Vandalism is going to happen, people are going to be unfriendly, and people are going to be lazy, regardless of whether or not there is an Esperanza here. I have serious doubts that an Esperanza project would solve any of these issues, as vandalism is most often committed by those with no real connection to Wikiquote and have no real interest in the project's success or failure; being rude or inconsiderate is something that a single place to talk (and let's face it, beyond membership in a somewhat-exclusive "club", what else is there to Esperanza?) is going to solve, as it's most often caused by stress or frustration with Wikiquote or from external sourced; I don't know that being "lazy" should be grounds for removing someone from the group. As this is a volunteer project, people are going to have other committments that are likely to require time, and this is likely to come at the expense of editing Wikiquote. One of the requirements for continued membership is to "edit 24 articles per week". Most of my activity on Wikiquote comes during the hours when I'm at work, because I often find myself with little else to do. I rarely do any significant editing on weekends or after 5pm, because I use that time for other things. Were I to end up in a situation where a crisis erupted at work, and I was backlogged with stuff there, and consequently unable to edit Wikiquote during my normal times, would I be removed as being "lazy"? It wasn't the case that I was actively deciding to neglect the project, just that I had more pressing matters to attend to. And what if I went on vacation again (as I did back in August)? While I had a laptop and an Internet connection available, I didn't make any edits to Wikiquote for the whole time I was away. Would that be grounds to consider me "lazy"?
Even now, I'm going too far by debating points of the policy. The simple fact remains that Esperanza doesn't fill some gap in Wikiquote, it doesn't solve any of the current problems we face, and I don't believe that it's going to make any difference in either making Wikiquote a busier place or preventing future problems. If the time should ever come for Esperanza (or an Esperanza-like project) here, it should be something developed though community consensus right from the start; it should be forced on Wikiquote as it seems you're trying to do. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This week we are not just voting on Esperanza but we are also voting on the future of Esperanza. If you vote not to make Esperanza a project on wikiquote you really will not see any changes right away but a few years down the rode we will have more members, that will mean that we will have more unfriendly users, more vandalism, and more inactive users. If you vote to make Esperanza a project at wikiquote we will have less problems in the future. You may not need a Esperanza now but if you vote to make it a project then our problems will not be as bad. If you want major problems then do not make this a project, but if you want the status quo then vote to make Esperanza a project.--Sir James Paul 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition

Ah, thank you. I thought that looked familiar, but it was buried in my brain behind all the other noise since we last saw this page. Thanks for remembering and deleting it! ~ UDScott 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Copeland Deletion

Call me weird or whatever, but I feel really strongly about you guys deleting professional wrestler Adam Copeland's Wikiquote article, and I know it's far too late to do anything about it, but at least hear me out.

You have said that one of the reasons it was deleted was because many of the quotes were unsourced. As one said in the talk page regarding its deletion, many professional wrestlers' quotes are unsourced because they have said these quotes live on television, and God knows whether the WWE can disclose video clips or transcripts of them reciting all these quotes. I don't see why you guys have to stop at Edge's article. Since many articles of professional wrestlers' quotes are unsourced, why stop at Edge? Why not delete every single Wikiquote article about members of the WWE roster, then?

Besides, many people who edited that article took care to indicate when these were said and under what circumstances they were said, so I don't see why you regard them as "unsourced" just because there is no audio or video or interview transcript. Thanks for hearing me out and I hope to get your reply soon.



Thanks for the welcome. You have a troll on your hands, User:13-year-old-girl (see here), the "J**** R****" quoted is apparently the user himself. I've reverted his edits, he should be blocked and watched as he will likely create new accounts. Herostratus 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

That was not a test. It was an actual quote.--Me56! 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was (and I can't seem to recall any point in the movie when Anakin/Vader said that, but I'll reluctantly give you the benefit of the doubt), the quote is still pointless, unmemorable, and not quotable. Wikiquote is not the place for cataloging everything that was said in a film (or book, or by a person, etc.) and meaningless quotes like that don't make the cut. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rovers

Hi. I'm not registered on Wikiquote, but I'm a Wikipedian (I go by User:Ben 10). Are you the one who reformatted the Road Rovers article? If it was you, thanks. There's some dialogue I remember, but I can't recall which episode it came from. Think you can help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm the one who reformatted it. I've never actually seen, and before this never even heard of, the show, but it was easy enough to reformat to match our TV show layout guideline.
If you have a bit of dialogue that you can't connect with an episode, the usual practice is to create an "Unidentified episode" section and add the dialogue to that. The idea is that someone else can them come along and move it to the appropriate episode.
Also, if you plan to continue editing at Wikiquote, you should really consider creating an account, if for no other reason than to make it easier for people to leave a note for you, if needed (for example, I'd probably copy this reply to a registered user's talk page, but I'm hesitant to add it to an unregistered user's because who know who'll end up with the IP address later). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]