User talk:Ottawahitech

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

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! Because you never got a welcome... :) ~riley (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I especially like the last line which sends me off to w:wikipedia:Bold. Just wondering if there are enough contributors here who are interested in having his policy converted to a wikiquote space? The problem for me was that I did not realize at first that I was out of wikiquote, and it could have caused me a problem if I tried to inadvertently edit at enwiki. Thanks again. Ottawahitech (talk)
I'm not a big fan of re-inventing the wheel, but I do agree, it shoots someone off unexpectedly to another wiki and thats not beneficial. I think it should either link to a soft redirect (Wikiquote:Be bold) or have a note that it's located on the English Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents. See what some others say? The community isn't very active here. ~riley (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@~riley: Problem is when I start asking questions I am busy doing that and not actually contributing content. Any suggestions? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If asking questions lead to improving content, then you're on the right track. ~riley (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best discussions I have witnessed were initiated by clueless newbies or trolls.It gets others to re-evaluate some of their core-beliefs. So- does this thread improve content? :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AOC Wikiquote[edit]

Hello, hope you are well. You recently reverted an article I added a quote to on the grounds that it was not cited. This was not correct. Please review the source before doing this in the future. If you need help finding the quote for your own reference please let me know and I will be happy to help you.


I added a new entry, is that acceptable? FcoonerBCA (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FcoonerBCA: if you mean Leisure Suit Larry in The Land of the Lounge Lizards then you have probably made a first step that is a bit too big. The new article you created is not likely to attract new readers who are interested in video games to wikiquote, and will probably be deleted in short order unless you can can add more useful quotes to it.
Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images with links[edit]

I found how to put an image and make it by default lead to a specific page rather than the image page description ! It is here : [1] Anthere (talk)

Thanks so much. Glad to see you are active here. Are you still working on #shesaid? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment removed[edit]

I believe this user removed the comment you left at his talk page and called you a vandal. --My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Diasmanozy: Thanks for visiting my home on WQ, and thanks for letting me know that my comment has been removed on someone else's homepage talk. My view is that contributors are free to do as they like on their own turf, and that removing posts from others is their prerogative. I prefer to have my own talkpage in its natural state, and have rarely (if ever) removed comments left for me by others.
However, the fact User:DawgDeputy broke into my own home and removed your comment is not Ok, and I undid his action. Unfortunately since the legality of the image you left as part of your comment is disputed, I had no choice but to remove it since I do not want to be part of that dispute. I hope you do not mind too much. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and now, back to work. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Millie Bobby Brown[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your contribution to this page. I noticed that you removed the categories from the article, but they belong to the category. Also they are used in English Wikipedia. In that article it is properly cited with references. Therefore we can assume that everything in enwiki is correct. I hope you have understood and will be waiting for your response to the article. Thank you. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saroj Uprety: I would be happy with categories that support information in the WQ introduction, no references necessary. If you feel sure about adding information to the WQ introduction to support a category, that's great, go ahead and do it. Those who have doubts can always check the references of the enwiki article that is linked from the WQ introduction. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluntly put, many enwiki articles are not accurate, so buyer beware. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to link to counterevidence?[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you removed six Donald Trump quotes where I had stated "Claimed, contrary to evidence ...". You asked me to provide that evidence. In what way should I do this? In my view, I had already provided counterevidence by quoting a fact check that refuted all the claims in the quotes. Isn't this sufficient? When BBC refers to court decisions, isn't that sufficiently good counterevidence?

What if I instead of referring to counterevidence, rather point to the lack of evidence from Trump? "Claimed, without evidence..." ? Joreberg (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Joreberg:

I noticed that you removed six Donald Trump quotes

NO I only removed one, because I wanted to make the point that adding any commentary, one that is not supported by the quote itself, is not necessary. I trust the reader to be intelligent and draw the right conclusion when the evidence is right in front of them. You are doing a great job of collecting the quotes, and the quotes tell the story, no need to hammer it into the readers, in my opinion. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to me it seems that somebody, using your name, removed one collection of six quotes. To me those six quotes seem important, because Trump repeated these talking points over and over in the phone call to the Georgia state secretary and they are very strong allegations. The link that I added, was to a fact check that seemed of high quality and corresponding well to what the Georgia state secretary said during the phone call, giving useful context and fact checking to the claims from Trump. When Trump claims that there were votes from 5000 dead persons, and the reality is 2, this is a serious discrepancy that should be made clear to readers. You commented "Please provide url/link to "contrary to evidence" - how should I do this if you don't think the BBC News fact check is good enough? Or could I just state "Claimed, without evidence"? Joreberg (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are right there were several quotes included on this edit. I just checked the first one regarding the 5,000 dead people voting in Georgia and the BBC said they had checked the claim of 10,000 dead people in Michigan, not Georgia I think. However it has been a long day and I may be missing something. Do you mind if we take this discussion over to the talkpage of Donald Trump? I prefer to include others in such discussions.
Oh and btw I really don't think you should repeat the "Claimed, without evidence" on almost every single quote. Those who pay attention already know that Trump cries wolf constantly, but those who don't, will only conclude that this information is biased when there is no support for it right in front of them. Just my $.02 Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, points taken. Thank you for your advice! Joreberg (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Ottawahitech

You asked how to change your signature.

Did you try to change your signature? Did you see my comment on how this can be done?

Please let me know if I can be of more help with the signature. -- ~ #SheSaid 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I saw your comment. I must confess I have been too busy to do anything about it. My problem is I cannot decide what to include: #shesaid/ please ping me/This user is proud to be trash/ or terms I often use when signing talk-page comments. Of course, since I also participate in other wmf-wikis, I would like to keep my sig as neutral as possible, so I'll be able to use the same sig on all wikis.
As I said it will take me awhile to do this, but now that I have a reminder on my talkpage, I know it will get done someday :-) Thanks again for your help. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, "necessary" is a bit of a stretch. But I think it improved readability. Evidently you disagree. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow:, Yes, you guessed it, I disagree. Do you feel strongly enough to try and get consensus to reverse my reverse? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. But I do wonder why you felt so strongly about the change to revert it. Would you have made changes if the original editors had indented as I did? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would I have made changes if the original eitors had indented as you did? - yes:
  • If I thought it was the kind of topic that may be revisited in the future and
  • If I thought that it was important that people understand the issue and
  • I had the time to do it (it is very time comsuming to re-indent an existing section with multiple previous contributors), and
  • there was not anything else I felt compelled to do at that time
Hope I have covered all the points? Cheers,Ottawahitech (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW since you mentioned the number of colons as the reason for your reformat which I had reverted, I wonder why you feel this way? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I mention the number of colons as a reason? I don't recall doing that. My rationale was a belief that outdents should occur when new topics enter a discussion. My hope is that this formatting helps those involved in the discussion not lose track of the multiple issues to resolve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butwhatdoiknow:, Since enquote usually follows policy at enwiki, I took the liberty of moving some of the help guidelines to WQ's Help:Talk_page#Starting_a_new_thread. I guess the gist is that when discussion develops it is good to keep in mind that some readers will be visiting the discussion at a later date and may want to contribute to the discussion. Threading provides for discussions that follow ideas rather than dates, so that each new comment is indented below the one it is responding to, rather than built chronologically.
I doubt I am making any sense. Will have to improve this later. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butwhatdoiknow: I have decided to completely replace Help:Talk page, and to my surprise no one objected. I cannot decide if this is an improvement on my enwiki experience, where in frustration, after a couple of futile attempts to improve documentation, I simply stopped paying attention to those types of pages. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An option for Chinese economy?[edit]

Renminbi Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me, but... Other than the copyrights question, I have been caught in the wiki-crossfire of "China" in the not too distant past. I am not sure but I suspect that there is disagreement between the mainland Chinese and Hong-Kongians about what China is. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, just to make things more complicated, don't forget Taiwan! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk pages policy[edit]

@Butwhatdoiknow: In regards to your posting at:

I believe this was the practice at enwiki when i was still allowed to participate there, but I cannot find the policy/guideline/essay. I found a nicely worded policy at: wiktionary:Wiktionary:Usernames_and_user_pages#User_talk but I personally do not agree with it.

What is your opinion? Should we adopt this one at WQ? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a problem that needs solving? If it is, I have found the community here to be rule adverse. So "adoption" probably isn't in the cards. An essay? Of course. A guideline? Unlikely. A policy? A million to one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butwhatdoiknow: You have been around here much longer than I have, so please enlighten me: Why do you believe the WQ community is rule adverse? What I have seen is that this community relies (maybe too much?) on the rules devised for enwiki. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I base that on, for example, a failed attempt to elevate WQ:Q to a policy and, more recently, this discussion: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Possible_big_change:_require_proof_of_notability_of_quote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, com'n @Butwhatdoiknow: you can do better than that. Everyone is busy, just because they won't drop everything they are doing to help promote one out of many wannabe-policies, or participate in public discussion at the Village Pump, does not mean there is no appetite for some basic rules.
Yes, I am sure people don't want to see the maze of rules created at enwiki, where one now needs a PhD to navigate their way from getting up in the morning to having a cereal for breakfast (or a bowl of rice, or whatever). But some kind of framework is absolutely necessary the more complex a society becomes to avoid the mob-rule that seems to have engulfed META.
Right now we have a nice little fiefdom at WQ, an island where there are only two(?) admins publicly setting the tone. The rest of the admins are either silently plugging away in their niche areas, or are part-timers putting in their quota for promotion into a larger, more respectable role elsewhere in the wmf-universe. Without any kind of written framework this ship may sink if one of these admins, currently setting the tone, is hit by a virtual-truck.
Even our little WQ paradise is starting to fray at the seams, when a certain registered member continues to simply remove everything his opponents post in public, apparently with impunity. It appears that all our 17 admins are either too busy or are afraid to make a move without a clear policy to stop this unsocial behaviour. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure why you are wasting your time discussing this with me. You clearly believe this is a problem that should be solved. Go forth and propose your solution (or, if you want to live life on the edge, do a bold edit). I'll join in any ensuing discussion if and when it comes to my attention and I have anything to say. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I share your opinion that the WQ community is rule-averse. However, it appears that our newest admin does not share this opinion and has used the lack of a specific rule to justify their action. Just wondering if you think something can be done about it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC) @Butwhatdoiknow oops forgot to ping Ottawahitech (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can something be done about making a rule requiring admins to provide more information when they ban? Or about the use of a "no rule against it" argument to justify an action? Or about lack of rules generally? As it turns out, it doesn't really matter because I don't think anything can be done about any of them. Regarding a lack of information for a ban, it appears that the workaround is for you to do what you did: ask the admin why they did what they did. (And, when doing so, perhaps leave off the accusatory last sentence.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ship is sinking[edit]

The ship is sinking: this wiki has lost 2/3 of the readers compared to the year 2019.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ivalon Olavi: Not quite as dire as you paint it, but yes, all wmf-wikis are experiencing a drop in pageviews. See: Ottawahitech (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked at the statistics of the main page.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your thanks policy[edit]


Many times I thank users for changes they made a long time ago, such as starting an important page. Some of the users I thank have not been active for years, I thank them just in case they ever check their account...

As you can see, it worked with me @Lem.

Btw, greetings from a fellow banned enwikipedian ;) : who rarely contributes here.

Bows Zezen (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zezen: Thanks for letting me know - you are the first Wikiquotien who told me my thanks brought them back, yey! As far as being a fellow banned enwikipedian - you are also the first to admit openly being blocked (I think?). I guess this is the nature of WQ, which allows users to be open. I don't know if you are interested in other blocked users, but if you are I recommend going through the Babe kebab saga without trying to cram it all in in one sitting. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link: will read. It may come useful for the my enwiki promised analysis, see the

Naïve essay on the changing nature and future of Wikipedias


For the record

entries on my enWikiTalk. (Maybe you want to collaborate?)

I am enwiki banned and quite "proud" of it, see also my topical meta contributions, e.g. on

Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Anti-harassment/UserBlind mode

BTW, re "wikiquotient": having learnt this term from you now, I enjoy its mellifluous vibe! (also as a member of another "quotient" society :).

Greetings from across the pond Zezen (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from a full screen PC: you wrote of a "Wikiquotien" not a "Wikiquotient" :), which apparently also exists, pacem (a cool game cum self-test, btw.)

Is this Wikiquotien used here on en-wikiquote or is it only a fr-wiki neologism? Google suggests the latter, a meta-quote from old en-meta:

Au moins on parle de WikiQuote ! At least we speak about WikiQuote (...) C'est un wikiquotien frustré qui a envoyé cette lettre pour faire parler de wikiquote...

Zezen (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I have spent some 90 minutes on this discussion that you recommended, with random sanity check jaunts to the meta, simple wiki and even to an enwiki talk page via archive hacking, as per the links or advice given there.

Summary of my naive, hurried and intuitive take:

1. I will likely become globally banned too, one day :).

2. Deja vu, that is my enwiki lolcat profile pic, as per SheSaid's recommended Auerbach's article:

"the problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them, and Risto editing in hundreds of wikis increased the risk of this happening to him"

3. I may use some of these meta examples in my essay, in a generic way.

4. Another Polish wikiquote for us all:

Prawda leży pośrodku – może dlatego wszystkim zawadza?

(The truth lies in the middle - maybe that's why it gets in the way?) attributed to this guy and also to Aristotle. <meta self-irony> Which reminds me of another great quote... <self-irony off>


Zezen (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Ottawahitech, I have just used your method of thanking a random user for their old contribution there, on meta. And I creatively used his ideas re the upcoming UCoC, as well, see it there on my plwiki Talk page (prepare for a mixture of bad Russian, Polish and draft halting English, alas).

Zezen (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah the joys of wikiquote[edit]

thanks for your thanks I realise there isnt thanks here on wikiquote (or I cannot find it yet...) - the meta quote by someone else about the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen seemed just too good...( having been in the world of dogs, but not slept with them mind you - always the back yard or kennel, not on beds) - thanks for your reformatting - appreciated. No doubt the handler from the handler (now I am not going to explain that one on wiki..) who is still the handler of the knowledge of the bestest truth from the fake ruler, has more to give in the future, as long as there is something to drip...

Or something like that JarrahTree (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day @JarrahTree: Its an honour to have an oldtimer like you posting on my talkpage. I am curious: why do you say there is no thanks on WQ? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed kind sir, most long-stayers on some wikis are looked at with a curious gaze like, you still here? - as for a thanks thingo, of course it is there... the return edit was, hahah too hurried an edit to realise... - very slow at picking up in old spaces like source, quote and voyage - sadly neglected (on my part) but creepingback in... JarrahTree (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice re RS formatting in WikiQuote neeeded[edit]

Hello again,

Can you take a look at my today's edit at Dr._Seuss#Miscellaneous? I tried to format it as per my enwiki habits, but there is no RS cite tool here and the community formatting guidelines are sorely lacking in this respect IMHO:

When sourcing, be as accurate as possible: specify the source, the place within the source (if reasonable) and if the source is online, link to it. 

- they tell us what to do, but do not say how nor provide easy copy->paste examples.

I have tried to follow the samples in Lem's, but even in that one article they are inconsistent, cf.


Zezen (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zezen: I am sorry but I cannot spare the time for at least the next couple of weeks. I am currently very busy at Wikiquote:Village_pump#2021_Steward_Elections_updates. In my experience the VP is a good way to have such questions answered. Do you not agree? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, ta. I ll format here in future using common sense then, as no time for posting and waiting for VP. The worst that may happen: I ll get blocked here too :). Zezen (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zezen: If my opinion counts, I think you are doing the right thing. In my experience using common sense at WQ is welcomed. I have been here for almost a year now, and so far I have not received too much negative feedback, have not experienced many reverts and not many page deletions. Most users have been friendly, too. Its early days, though... Ottawahitech (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So have I here. See eg. the unexpected concrete advice:

And ta for the fixes of my edit there! Zezen (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC), with some new magic wikiwords in his meta and quote profilesReply[reply]

Yes, user:UDScott is both helpful and attentive. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was your rationale for making this a redirect to White privilege? I would expect to have a page for White that contains quotes about the color itself (just as we do for Black). This appears to be pushing a specific POV. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UDScott: Thanks for asking. As you probably know I built the white-redirect specifically for Life expectancy. I had no idea there are already so many articles on WQ that had red-links to "white", including Race and appearance of Jesus which is clearly not a link to the colour "white", but to the race. I guess someone (me if I get a chance) will have to build a disambig page to replace the redirect page. It will be even better if we had both "white colour" and a "white race" articles on WQ. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk)
Thank you - I didn't assume that you had intent to push a POV (it just gave the appearance of it). Thanks for changing the page - I agree that a disambig page is preferable. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Risto hot sir[edit]

DanielTom has said that the only way Risto could get unlocked would be with help of others

From what I have seen, and experienced first-hand years ago, stewards globally lock accounts with little or no critical thinking, simply following requests (sometimes raised by overzealous admins or other users with personal vendettas). Global locks are very difficult to appeal, at least without the help of other users. The users that are globally locked are not so much as notified, thus they cannot defend themselves prior to the global lock. Needless to say, this is a great injustice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

and I believe only with the help of admins could it succeed. The WQ admins who have seen that this is a very constructive editor who may have been unfairly locked, could help making a proposal or request.

Do you think that a proposal or lock review with support of WQ admins could help? -- ~ #SheSaid 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @DanielTom: Make sure DanielTom realizes we are not talking about them behind their backs :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Maybe a local admin could unblock Risto on en.wikiquote? According to m:Global blocks it should be possible. I would agree. --Spinoziano (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spinoziano: That only applies to global blocks, global locks prevent you from logging into your account entirely (no exceptions). As of August 2022, global blocks can only preformed on IP addresses, but they will soon be able to applied to accounts as well. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 22:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


mw:Topic:W4ly1hec06st56pu. Hello. Yes, you can report a problem to me. Whats wrong?—Iluvatar (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iluvatar Thank you for your VERY prompt reply. I apologize for dragging you here for nothing. I was going to ask you a question about SWViewer [1.4], but when I looked at the history of my usertalkpage again, I discovered that my question was invalid. Sorry, I promise to try harder not to waste your time in future. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You've already fairly well been notified that this discussion has been closed by an administrator, and the close has been further endorsed by another (me). You cannot war to keep open a four month old discussion simply because you didn't get the answer you wanted. This is disruptive, as you've already been told. You may consider this a final warning. GMGtalk 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm not sure how I can be more explicit in issuing warnings. If you reopen this discussion again, I will block you. GMGtalk 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please come back, the project needs You!--Funky kicker (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reversion[edit]

I don't understand why you reverted my change here: [2]. Your edit summary does not make it any clearer. As this work is a graphic novel, it seems appropriate to have this specific category for it (which is already a subcategory of Comics). I assume you disagree, but I don't understand why. Can you elaborate? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:@UDScott: Sorry, I thought I included an explanation in my edit summary (?).

Anyway if you look at the enwiki article w:Mercy (Vertigo) you will see the category w:Category:Comics by J. M. DeMatteis. Are we not using enwiki as the bible at WQ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize. I assumed too much and did not take the time to read your message carefully. I stand corrected - I should not have replaced Category:Graphic novels with Category:Comics. My action was wrong because Comics is the parent of Graphic novels, and categories should be as specific as possible. I hope to never repeat this kind of mistake again. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries - yes, that was my point. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

redirect to a non-existent article[edit]

Sorry. Redirects to non-existent pages are subject to speedy deletion.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jusjih: Thank you, I appreciate getting notices of deletion, even if it happens after the deletion. Can you please explain the rationale of deleting a redirect to a notable topic (Hungary). Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Me disagreeing with them wasn't really why I reverted them. Instead it was because they were putting their own POV on the talk page, which is not what talk pages are for. --Ferien (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ferien:
I assume you mean my undoing of your removal at : ? If so lets see what others have to say. Thanks for posting, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that is the edit I was talking about. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
do you have any criticism of these quotes other than that you don't agree with them ferien? --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:2815:7106:CEBA:6EFF 18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read above. Talk pages are for improving the article, not for spamming information for or against a certain thing. --Ferien (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category change[edit]

Hi, you're welcome. FYI I changed the parent category of Category:17th-century Indian women to "Indian women" as it's a more precise subcategory (a category you changed). --Ferien (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ferien: Nice to see someone new to me take an interest in Category work on WQ.
I wonder if you have an opinion on Category:Journalists by country. There are currently two types of subcategories there:
  • categories named Journalists from X (which to me translates to a journalist that is not necessarily a native of X who reports from country X)
  • categries named X journalists (a national of X who is a journalist reporting not neccessarily from country X)
Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think for someone reporting from country X, Journalists from X would be better. X journalists would be more native of country X, at least for me. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: So you think we should have two sets of categories? What about the current parent category Category:Journalists by country -- will it house both those types of categories or should there be a separate category tree for each? Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if we should have two separate sets of categories, but if we did I think it would be appropriate to have two parent categories. --Ferien (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding your recent edit to add back the category of Category:Nigerians to a page that already has Category:Nigerian women (see here), I would argue that rather than overcategorizing, as I believe this does, there are really two more preferable options: create a category for Nigerian men or remove the category of Nigerian women. Leaving things as they are appears to maintain some redundancy in the categories. Your thoughts? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we are both busy elsewhere on WQ is it Ok if we move this VERY important discussion to Category talk:Women#WP:Ghetto to get more participants? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • remove him from Cat-Welsh and move him to cat-uk?
  • have him in both cats? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and another: Abu Nuwas was one of three on Category:Medieval LGBT people, so I also added him to Category:LGBT people (which btw needs to be diffused - it has 566 total entries outside of cats) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Ottawahitech. Iraqi refers to modern nationality of Iraqi people. As you can see in EnWiki, there is no category of peoeple of Iraq before 20th century. and I have been blocked there for more than two years just bcz i started categorizing poets from Iraq by century, started from 9th century, but no one said ok do it. So, 1920 is the start year. With Regards. --Ruwaym (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And about Imams: You can see in here: the title of Imam in Twelver Shia Islam has been used for only Twelve people, and for Ismaili Shias, there is a list. Non one of Muqtada Sadr or Ahmadinejad or Khomeini are [Twelve] Shia Imams. The Title of Imam for them are used politially, because they were/are "Leaders" (Imam in Arabic), but not to be confused with doctrine of Imamate in Shia Islam. It's just title of honor for them, used by their followers, nothing more. and the category is useless, also against ‎ NPOV. --Ruwaym (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clothing in India[edit]

Hi, I think that edit was reverted because of the external link added in it that was spam. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you've got to ask...[edit]

  • Hi Ottawahitech... Re: Your removing "See also" topics shortly after i added them to the IMF page. You removed them and commented, "relevance?". Maybe you've never heard the expression, "If you've got to ask, you'll never know." If you had only taken the 'trouble' to read the quotations about the IMF on the IMF page, and maybe even done some additional research, perhaps you would have understood perfectly why the topics were added to the "see also" section.
  • In the future if you have questions as to "relevance" of materials posted, before undoing the work of another volunteer, please consider: 1) Doing some reading & asking yourself: Could the material added to "see also" be related to the subject and helpful for some readers? Could it help some get a better, more rounded understanding of the subject? or 2) Just leave the the work of the other editor alone; or 3) Ask about relevance in the discussion page first, without undoing another editor's work, and expecting them to justify their work to you.
  • Does that seem reasonable to you?
  • As Einstein and others have pointed out: everything, every atom is connected to all the others. Some are obviously more related than others. But what is obvious to some is not obvious at all to others, so we aim to practice tolerance & goodwill towards all. Thank you for the good work you do. Happy Holidays. WeNotMeC020 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @WeNotMeC020, Can we agree to disagree at Wikiquote:Village_pump#How_are_disagreement_about_content_handled_on_WQ?. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That we disagree is fine.[edit]

I enjoy cordial disagreement. I am not one to blether on at deletion discussions, so I will leave it at my reply to you there.

The point you make is valid. However, should rule breaking be rewarded (assumjng rules here to be broken). That is a large discussion, and one I will let others have Timtrent (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on a subject that seems to follow me for years now. You probably know I was blocked on enwiki at the beginning of 2017 for Long term failure to abide by basic content policies. What you may or may not know is that since that indef-block:
  • months later my enwiki talkppage was blocked for proxi-editing
  • After making Simple-wiki my new home I was indef-blocked there in 2020 for one-strike
  • Later I was indef-blocked on Meta (by the same users involved in my simple-block) also in 2020 for not-here, unblocked in 2021 briefly, and...(here it starts getting really muddled) re-blocked for unclear
As someone who is currently blocked on 3-wikis I believe I myself am in grave danger of being globally blocked (with no discussion) if I am not super-careful. If I do end up being blocked, I would hate to have my contributions labelled as contributions of an LTA or whatever the pejorative term-of-the-day happens to be. This is currently already happening on enwiki where my contributions are still being proposed for deletion more than 4 years after I was blocked.
This is the reason I try to raise discussion about other globally blocked/locked individuals when I happen to crossroads with them and it is not clear to me why they were blocked. For example here: Wikiquote:Village_pump#A_Wikiquotian_who_helped_the_WQ:Shesaid_campaign_has_been_globally_blocked.
I guess what I am trying to say is that this may be a bigger question than "should rule breaking be rewarded". The question in my mind is how does one handle a society that is not tolerant enough to accept mild aberrations from the norm in its citizens? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had no idea until I looked you up that you were blocked. I recall you as a collegial editor, but what do I know!
In this editor's case it is a large sock farm of editors likely paid by the gentleman in question. It's all rather pointless since he is genuinely notable, and, were he to call off his pride editor(s) and not seek to massage pieces on him to show himself in a better light then all would be peaceful.
Your own case seems a long way from that. I imagine it is appealable, yet appeals are a painful process, handled by those who held one to account in the first place. There is, I suppose, ArbCom. Timtrent (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtrent, Thanks for letting me know that you did not know that I was blocked on enwiki. I have often wondered how people find out who is blocked and who is not on wmf-projects. In the case User: Kotkan lusija whom I mentioned at the VP (village pump), the only reason I noticed that they were globally blocked is that this is a user on whose reliable and prolific work I depended, so noticed their absence but only weeks after they were blocked.
There is no notice of the blocking on the User page nor more importantly, on the user's talk. Cheers,
(having trouble spacing paragrahphs using the [reply tool) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I make a habit of checking, especially when I see an editor who appears to be both active and absent in the same paradox. Timtrent (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northern Light[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Northern Light, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horror film article on English Wikipedia[edit]

Dear friend I have a request for you for the article horror film on English Wikipedia can you split the 2010s to present section into two sections the 2010s section and the 2020s section so they both can be even decade sections like this.
2020s 17:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ Are you asking me to make a change to another wmf-wiki on your behalf? If so, there two things you should know:
  1. I cannot do what you asked because my account has been blocked on Enwiki
  2. Even if I could edit Enwiki, there is a policy/guidline/rule called something like Proxy editing which forbids users from making edits on behalf of someone else, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry to say but your edit on that page above seems to have gone in my rollback of the other editor's revisions. I couldn't resurrect it with my own physical-eye review. Very sorry. You are welcome to reedit the page. And last not but least, welcome back. --Aphaia (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really appreciate this message. It makes me feel welcome at WQ.
My experence as a user who has been blocked on three other wmf-wikis has taught me how important it is to notify ordinary editors when edits they make have been deleted , rolled-back, reverted , or undone . As far as I know the software takes care of notifications in the case of the latter two, but not in the first two. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That edit you thanked me for actually wasn't supposed to happen. I usually add all categories in the category, which in Cat-a-lot I do by selecting all the pages then removing the articles. Looks like I hadn't noticed the article in that category. I noticed you've fixed it anyway. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also, I don't think pages should be in a year category if it's "circa YEAR" because it's not known it's that exact year. --Ferien (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien Agreed I undid all(?) my edits. Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Ottawahitech since Spider-Man is Marvel's most well-known superhero can you be able to edit the Spider-Man article on Wikipedia as the protagonist of the Marvel Universe? 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We generally do not include what you added to this page. In general (especially for film pages), we try to keep the description of the film to a brief explanation of the plot. Extra information, such as what you added, is better served on the corresponding page at Wikipedia. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UDScott, sorry for taking so long to respond. I must admit I almost forgot. However after beefing up the Philip Giraldi intro with material from ENWP, I finally remembered, duh.
So what is your opinion of this? I am wondering because of the many comments on AN about WQ using "forbidden sources". Ottawahitech (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Is there an easier way..."[edit]

Hey there! :) Regarding this - yes, I think there are some easier ways. I copied about half the page (below where you had left off) into a text document on my laptop, then searched and replaced. If I had been more clever I would have replaced *" with * to save a step, before running the search and replace on the " only. Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Antandrus, it was very kind of you to finish this edit. If you had not done it I would be spending this morning trying to finish up the job I started instead of having time to do more enjoyable stuff. You even took care of correcting the error I left behind (not removing one of the pesky "s). Thank you so much.
I wonder if this type of situation is a common occurrence at WQ. I remember vaguely reading about one of the early editors of enwp who spent their own wiki-career going methodically through all of enwp articles correcting one small thing. It reminds how important is to have people interested in doing things that others, like me, find a real drudgery. Diversity is the spice of life, isn't it? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to understand your objection[edit]

Hi I want to respond to your comment at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein:

I know you believe you are improving WQ, but I have been here just a little longer than you, and to me it looks like you are undoing efforts by others to build up WQ by creating a pleasant environment that will attract more editors which is the only way to save it from dying. We are not WP which seems (at least for now) to have an unending stream of new editors to replace the old and disillusioned (or blocked).

I think most people come to Wikiquote, as I first did, just to add a quote or two. Then in early April, I saw the state of the Russo-Ukrainian crisis article and was amazed by its one-sided POV-pushing and reliance on fringe websites.

"Don't fix it if it ain't broke" is a good motto, but my dad used to say also "and Do fix it if the Damn thing is broke." IMO, somebody came in here and broke a lot of articles, I am digging through the pile of his work until I stop finding articles that are broke.

From the start, I was right up front about the problem I saw and how I wanted to fix it posting first at WQ:AN#Legacy_of_banned_user_User:Libraryclerk0191 and later at WQ:AN#Clean_up_on_Aisle_Five. Are you saying that the work of the socks I am trying to undo were efforts to "build up WQ"? That they were "creating a pleasant atmosphere" by adding images of screaming faces and nuclear bombs to lots of articles? Please be more specific about what you object to and what you think should happen. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles are for notable quotes about the article topic[edit]

Per WQ:WQ, "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations."

Your recent addition to Disneyland is not a notable quotation; it is a fragment of a news story about land purchases in 1964. It is also not about Disneyland, it is about w:Disneyworld.

Here is another example of an item that is not a "notable quotation" either about the general topic Deception or the general topic Misinformation:

* TurboTax advertisements and the TurboTax website were identified as a significant source of taxpayers’ misimpressions about using TurboTax for free

Yet you added it, redlinks and all, first to Misinformation, and then after it was reverted there, you added it to Deception. I have amended my earlier comment to be more specific and I hope more civil.

I believe you need to be more careful about editing in compliance with policy here, and also about checking your work. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A page that you have been involved in editing, Paywall, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Paywall. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I added a few quotes to make a case for keeping it. I think you are right that this is a topic where people might like to be able to find some notable quotables. So I hope it will be kept. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HouseOfChange, thank you. I truly appreciate any help I get. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On a scale of 1-10 how much would you say you trust, and how does that compare to the average user? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle, sorry I don't understand your question. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, how much do you trust me as an editor and how does that compare to the average editor? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle Just curious: have you asked other people the same unusual question? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, just you, because you are one of my most trusted editors. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We just met a couple of days ago (I think?). How can you trust me? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well so far you have made good edits. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Trust

Trust is a relationship of reliance. A trusted party is presumed to seek to fulfill policies, ethical codes, law and their previous promises.


Ottawahitech (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is my list of my most trusted editors. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your list Ottawahitech (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any recommendations as to who I could add? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create a new template?[edit]

@Ilovemydoodle, I think I saw somewhere that you offered to create new templates for Users on WQ? If so, would you be able to create a template that would go on the talk-page of articles that have been used by "Quote of the day" to inform readers? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not fully understand what you want me to make. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I already forgot, but it appears that you can do much better, so I won't bother trying to remember. Cheer, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers* – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have no problem with them being used. The logo was adapted from something w:User:TheNewPhobia had. The poem was from w:user:B00P, see w:User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive27#Upload. The line is by w:Ian Anderson in a song called Quizz Kid from w:Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! The kid in the picture is my grandson. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: How to see a hidden category[edit]

Hi Ottawahitech. I saw you question about why do you not see a hidden category you just added, and to see it you go to:
View History / page info [3] and you will see at the bottom part of the page the Hidden Categories. Also, if you go to your hidden category, you will see your page listed there. Hope this helps. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Emilijaknezevic: Wow, thanks! Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I was hoping there is a way to set my preferences to show hidden categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is: Go to your preferences, click on Appearance, then scroll down to Advanced options. There's a checkbox you can select to see them. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @UDScott I set it. I hope it works. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit section template (Crosspost from the Village pump)[edit]

On Wikipedia there is a template called {{Edit section}} (which I needed for a template I was making, so I copied it over and it doesn't work. So I tested it on Wikipedia and works just fine. Do you have any idea on why this is happening and how to fix it?

Edit: It appears that the section attribute in the url when editing behaves differently on Wikiquote then on Wikipedia, on Wikipedia it can be a number or a section name, while on Wikiquote it can only be an number, why is this and how do I make it behave like Wikipedia? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not off hand and I must leave vey soon Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
to do some non-ottawahitech things Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle, Can you make The admin barnster template insert a heading title something like "a barnstorm for you"? I would appreciate the ability to award it to one of the admins here with as little effort as possible. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: Here's an automatic one. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic barnstar giver[edit]


Here‘s an automatic barnstar giver. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

The Admin's Barnstar

Automatic award request



Template:DsIlovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, please just stop redacting comments. There is no need to at all. --Ferien (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:DsIlovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No you don't. You are only attracting more attention to yourself which is what vanishing is supposed to stop. --Ferien (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:DsIlovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you needed to you would have followed DannyS712's advice and emailed stewards and admins. Instead you have ignored the advice given to you and made many discussions you have been in useless to others by removing your messages which others have responded to and even others' messages. --Ferien (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle, just wanted to let you know that your redaction on the village pump (sorry I forget where exactly) is preventing me from deciphering a notification I received (I forget which one). Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2022 monkeypox outbreak, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) 08:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albert W. Tucker[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Albert W. Tucker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin accountability poll[edit]

Admin accountability poll is open, vote here. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 10:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Ottawahitech: Template:Ds Nevermind due to particular behavior – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 21:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea!--Saita Matias (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igbo wikiquote (incubator)[edit] Rich Farmbrough (talk)

@Rich Farmbrough: Huh? Could you please clarify your question or request? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 10:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Ilovemydoodle: Ottawahitech had asked for the location of the Igbo Wikiquote. It is currently in "incubation" at the Wikimedia incubator. So it is not a question or request, but an answer. Happy to satisfy your curiosity. Rich Farmbrough (talk)


Please don't refer to my as "love", just "ilovemydoldle". Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle, Sorry, I did not mean to offend. I called you "love" after seeing someone else call you "dood". I meant it as a term of endearment, but did not think. I remember myself being offended after being addressed as "love" by a older person.
I hope you will forgive me? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ottawahitech: No need to be forgiven, you didn't do anything wrong, I just wanted to inform you. Thanks, Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am relieved to find out I did not offend you Ottawahitech (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes needed[edit]

Could you vote on this VfD? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it important that I vote on this? Participating in any deletion activities makes me unhappy. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please just vote? I really want this Template to stay. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 02:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for adminship[edit]

I wanted to nominate you for adminship, so I started writing a request, but I couldn't write enough to make a full request. So, I was wondering if you would be interested in becoming an admin and if so, could you submit a self-request? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New permission feedback[edit]

Could you vote here? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Infection[edit]

Hey, it's alright if you make a mistake in creating a page. If you want it deleted, you can tag it with {{delete|author request}} and the page can be quickly deleted. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you I will try my hardest to remember this piece of advice. I guess adding a comment to the talkpage (which I think is what I did?) is not acceptable here?
Another question: I was trying to add a favorite quote to my user page (lifted from User:spannerjam’s userpage), and discovered a quote I had added previously which seemed to have disappeared, or so I thought. I looked at the contribution history of my page and found out there have been several contributions from users who are not me. What a mess…
I have just spent what seems like a century in wiki-time trying to figure out why some have been reverted, but others not.. How can I ask nicely to stop goodfaith-users (mainly admins and wmfers) from reverting stuff on my user-page? It is no help to me, quite the opposite. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The infection[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, The infection, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/The infection. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CensoredScribe, thanks for notifying me of this deletion discussion. Here is my opinion: Why waste your time on this, instead of doing what you do best (contributing more valuable quotes)?
IMIO it is a waste of time to list pages for dicussionon at WQ. I checked the page view statistics on that discussion and there has been only 11 page-views since the day after it was listed and only one uninvolved wikiquotiant have voiced their opinions. The discussion was to end on Nov 3, but it is still open. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noticed you got affected by the abuse filter. I thought I had fixed it but it appears you had a very strange error with it. I've disabled it completely. I have no idea why you were facing problems as the behaviour was nothing like that of the user who it was created for. I didn't create it, so I'm just going to let the creator fix it if they wish to. Apologies about that. --Ferien (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ferien, thanks for letting me know and saving me the trouble of having to report this error again. However, it appears that

..In addition, as a security measure, some privileges routinely granted to established accounts have been temporarily revoked from your account...

is accurate, I was just asked to enter a CAPTCHA when I tried to publish this, which I guess is what the lost privileges refer to? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I believe it's the temporary removal of autoconfirmed. I removed that from the filter if it does get re-enabled because I think removing autoconfirmed is completely necessary...particularly as we have faced a few false positives with the filter. The vandal who the filter is intended for mainly edits on IPs. --Ferien (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien, sorry I don't understand. How long will I have to pass the CAPTCHA test? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For 3 more days, I believe. I unticked the box that said "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" and autoconfirmed is given after 4 days and 10 edits, so I assume that your autoconfirmed would be given back 4 days after getting affected by the abuse filter. However, I may be wrong as I didn't create the abuse filter and I'm certainly not an expert at abuse filters in general. --Ferien (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A notice of why you have to pass CAPTCHA[edit]

You are blocked the autopromotion of Ottawahitech for a period of 5 days by abuse filter. That's why you need to pass CAPTCHA. If you wish, you could have a talk with sysops who could give you confirm right then you don't need to pass them. Lemonaka (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 (film)‎[edit]

I added that category because it is in the English Wikipedia article. Saroj Uprety (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saroj Uprety: Thanks for your message above. I am guessing that you are responding to my Edit Summary here? If so, I think I understand your position: you are saying that the category in question exists on enwp, so we can safely add it at wq?
But I guess my position is that I see no justification for adding this cat on enwp in the first place.
Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, we don't edit archive. Nearly nobody will notice the change. If you want to start that discussion again, you may just post a new one on VP and link it to the older one. Lemonaka (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message above.
Two questions:
  • Since you said "Normally, we don't edit archive" will you share who you mean by the word we
  • Since you say "Nearly nobody will notice" will you share how you yourself noticed
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We means normal users.
I noticed because I regularly checked the recent changes, and try to catch the edit pattern of IP vandal, called GRP here? Maybe. Lemonaka (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a tip, when you create redirects, it is always best to direct the user to the final page where they should end up, rather than redirecting to another redirect. These loops tend to frustrate the user and should be avoided. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for leaving this message. Please see: [4] Ottawahitech (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point in the example you gave there - but I would say that in this case, the nickname redirect you created still should point to the person to which it applies. Having it point to just his last name, and then redirecting again to his page does not seem to be needed IMHO. In your example, 'bill', 'legislation', and 'law' could all foreseeably stand on their own as individual pages, should there be specific quotes for each. But in this case, all the pages you were using as redirects are all just really different versions of pages for a single man. There would never be a page just for 'Desantis' and a separate page for 'Ron DeSantis'. Make sense? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Question about your edit to The Big Lie[edit]

That is a revert of a vandalism. Stang 13:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Stang, Thanks for asking about my edit to The Big Lie. Would you please elaborate: which edit are you referring to? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About misusing rights[edit]

From English wikipedia's Village pump:

There are still unanswered essential (and irritating?) questions – after three years!

- Praxidicae claimed that Risto hot sir is a disruptive editor. What are those ”disruptive edits? It should be easy to pick ’em out of nearly 100,000 ones. They haven’t been mass-reverted. Every jury in the free world wants to see evidences. And what might be the motive to damage the project?

- Based on that lie Wim b blocked Risto globally in less than one hour and not asking opinions of the local admins. Why just steward Wim b with their level two in English language?

- Before Risto was blocked in 5 wikis. One was the Dutch wikipedia after a couple of well-meaning edits. Vermont blocked them on Simple English wikipedia obviously for personal reasons. That can be seen if you read the conversations. The third block was set by Whaledad on Dutch wikiquote. This wiki’s editing history consists mostly of ”preventive blocks”. I haven’t seen those in other wikis. Why does the SWMT tolerate this?

- Afterwards Risto has used many accounts, but only to make articles better. Their edits haven’t been reverted. You actually ”punish” by shooting own knee – neglecting readers. The amount of visitors on the English wikiquote, for example, is lower than ever.

- And the most important question: why don’t the Meta-people trust in the local admins and their ability to decide what their wiki needs? Isn’t it time to unblock? Helekutin häslääjä (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Paloniemen Jaska (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the only answer:

User:Risto hot sir is globally locked. To appeal a global lock, you may follow the instructions at meta:Steward requests/Global#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding. For technical reasons, an unlock would need to be granted before we could consider an unblock request. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atmosphere of fear? It looks like admins can break rules without sanctions - but it's a taboo.--Paloniemen Jaska (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Paloniemen Jaska, thanks for dropping by.
Re:"admins can break rules without sanctions"'
Just as happens with politicians and other meatspace individuals, they can break the rules until they are caught. When they get caught, in the case of admins, it is up to the community to decide what to do. The problem at enWQ IMIO is the lack of an organized WQ-community. Do you agree?
BTW try to imagine being an admin who sometimes has no choice, but is forced to do something that may be unpopular with a certain segment of the population. It is not an easy job for those who try to execute it properly. It requires many different skills to execute well. Some admins are elevated (Yes they are ELEVATED - even though they will tell you they are only mopping up after others) with little wiki experience and some have no experience whatsoever in adding content to public pages. It is up to the community to vet admin candidates during their RFA, AND to follow up a month, a year, or forever, later.
I am saying this as a User who is currently indef-blocked by X admins on 3 other wmf-wikis (last count,I think?) but one who has (barely) survived (so far) since 2007. Note: I will attempt to come back later to turn redlinks into blue ones
Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be frustrating to block an editor endlessly who is back in less than a minute 'though their IP has been locked for many lifetimes. There are traitors among the stewards? - who think that the project is more important than someone's hurted Ego.--Tollorysä (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "It must be frustrating to block an editor endlessly "
I can only speak for myself: I am not an admin so this musical-chairs ritual of chasing and blocking good-faith wikignome sock puppetsof Risto is most definitely frustrating for me.
Instead of being here to work in content-building, something I do with joy, I spend most of my volunteer time wandering from one user-talk-page to another, because this topic is taboo on the WQ-VP.
It must also be super frustrating for the sock-master, who has been playing this thankless game of cat-and-mouse with dozens of Users for years. All to help us build a better resource! Ottawahitech (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, my comment above was completely messed-up by the reply-to software and I am out of time to fix it now. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your edits regarding the categories for this page. Why have both Category:Businesswomen and Category:Businesspeople for example? The first is a subcategory of the second - it is redundant to have both and it has always been standard practice here to remove such redundancies and not carry both categories on a page. What is the value of having both? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I get it now actually - although I still think it causes some confusion. To be honest, I would rather not have the subcategory of Category:Businesswomen if we did not have the converse Category:Businessmen. To me that was the point of having the Category:Businesspeople category in the first place - it doesn't matter the gender of the person. I would rather handle the fact that the person is a woman using other categories that show that (e.g., Category:British women). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category diffusion is a big headache especially when so many Users have little experience with wiki-categories. Here is another recent discussion on the very same topic:
Are women excluded when we build categories specifically for their pages on WQ?
BTW since this topic affects all Women pages on WQ it would be great if would you raise it at shesaid for discussion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: I saw you just created a page for this person (I know it is incomplete at this moment). My question is why you chose to link it to a Wikidata page instead of the page of Wikipedia, as is standard. On that WP page, you'll also find a much more complete intro for this person that I would suggest be used here. Just wondering. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @UDScott, I like experimenting. Is there a way to declare a page Under Construction? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, simply place the tag {{inuse}} and it will add an under construction label. When you are finished, simply remove the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,Ottawahitech. Ilovemydoodle has been locked instead of only blocked, they could no longer log in their account or sending emails. Locked users have no way to communicate with you, they are opt-out of message delivery on wikis.--Lemonaka (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Ottawahitech as you were wondering about my revert [5]: I just wrote „LTA“ (long term abuse) in the edit summary, full story is this [6]. It's now more obvious than ever, as they reactivated [7] this account just minutes after editing with a new sockpuppet [8]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please do at least a little bit of research before asking globally locked users to stay around. This one has been confirmed by enwiki checkusers as the sock of Tyciol, who was locked in 2010 with this being the reason. That is not the type of editor we want to keep on our project. --Ferien (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ferien, Thanks for dropping by and telling me I should do more research before asking globally locked users to stick around. May I explain why I don't believe this is good advice?.
Here goes:
I am here to contribute content, not to play political games. When I see a user such as WakandaQT who I have noticed before as a contributor who follows the WQ-rules (I think?) who is globally locked but not blocked at WQ, I worry about the future of this wiki. I really don't care (can I say this without being blocked myself?) if this user is a sock-puppet or not on another wiki-project. Can you find fault with their contributions on WQ?
disclosure: I have not had the time to check the link you provided above.
I apologize in advance for this garbled post. respectfully, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lindiwe Mafavuneh[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Lindiwe Mafavuneh, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Lindiwe Mafavuneh. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll let others work on deletions, not my area of expertise. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David DePape[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, David DePape, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/David DePape. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 13:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been on a tear suggesting various deletion avenues for many articles on enWQ. May I suggest you concentrate on the earliest articles at: Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article, before you discourage the many she-said participants who may be the new-WQ-blood many of us seek? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note your suggestion and if it logistically suits me I'll stretch myself in that direction. I think most #SheSaid participants are actually concentrating where existing enWQ articles exist, and I think the #SheSaid campaigners are concentrating on that also. I think a posslble problem exists for #SheSaid newbies on Wikiquote:SheSaid/RedLists where existing enWQ do not exist and are not explicitly marked as such. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing your point of view, however, as I told you above I have no interest in promoting more deletions at enWQ. As someone who attempts to add more information at enWQ, I believe we need (much more) content here , not less. But I'll leave this decision up to you.
In the meantime I would appreciate it if you stop hinting that I am a spammer/involved in promotionalism. If you feel that I am, or might be a spammer, I would appreciate it if you come to my talk-page to discuss why you feel this way. I promise I will address your concerns when I can find time to do it.
As I have already told you, I am triple blocked on other wmf-wikis and don't want go end up globally locked on some vague insinuations. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you please review OHT/sandbox in mainspace and delete if necessary. Thankyou -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please ex[plain mainspace? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goto Special:Contributions, Drop down the namespace dropdown which says "all" and observe the namespace name (main). -- So a short and possibly incorrect terminology for the (main) namespace on this wiki. On enWP its also called article space from memory, on commons its the (gallery) space. But i think in all WMD mediadia wikis its namespace 0 where the content is delivered. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disrupting VfD to make a point.[edit]

I observe you have again disrupted a WQ:VfD to make a point by failing to add your vote to the end of the list. Instead at Special:Diff/3211312 you disruptive made an entry prominently at the top of a VfD. It should have been clear this was inappropriate following my reformatting of your contribution at Special:Diff/3208036. This entry appeared to disparage my concerns about copyright, claim I am wasting the community's time, and also imply I should be doing more to help out new contributors. To start with the copyright violation. That's a serious matter. You are not new and should be experienced enough to have worked out the copyright issues existed up to and including Special:Diff/3195182 and was cleared by Special:Diff/3197754. I do make some efforts to welcome new contributors, and to guide them early before they get into a situation where they have a backlog of issues, whilst I am also concerned you may be leading new contributors into bad habits. And I think you know that if you continue to make the kind of comments you have been inclined to make directly or indirectly against myself, various sysops, and possibly campaign managers it may end up with sanctions and also with any appeal to have your block removed from sister project enWQ. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 18:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, will stop participating in VFDs Ottawahitech (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In no way do I wish to stop/discourage you from voting at a VfD by adding your vote at the bottom of a VfD as the process expects. I do genuinely fear any associated comment you may make may stray beyond the bounds of what is valid and acceptable and enter into the sphere of an attack on individuals and policy/practice and that might be a problem for you ultimately. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 20:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djm-leighpark, you accuse me of disrupting vfd while you yourself do some pretty strange things such as not signing your Template:Keeps. Just wondering why? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They allegation of VfD disruption was 2 months ago and I believe it was appropriate and in good faith. While I apologise for failure to sign it is often but using the wrong number of tilde's though sometime's I forget completely. I think your perfectly well aware of {{Unsigned}} which I often use for myself and others when I forget it. In practice its a W:WP:TROUT job. To re-iterate I absolutely have no issue with you contributing to VfD's and really would welcome your contributions. However should you fail to avoid making vaugewave "sideswipe" comments at such discussions there may be consequences. Our house has a healthcare worker down with covid, my wife likely infected also and I'm probably getting symptoms myself and likely to be grumpy, very grumpy (albeit a Covid is not likely nearly as risky as my first one). You do some really good work here, getting Peel involved for looking at a bot to assist sitelinks was really, really useful. Try not to wreck it with annoying comments. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Djm-leighpark, Thanks for the friendly post. I am sorry to hear about the COVID situation, and hope you are correct in saying that it is less risky nowadays. I myself am not 100% sure that this applies to me personally, so am still being very cautious (washing hands frequently, avoiding indoors contact as much as possible, etc). However, it does appear(?) that I am in a small minority of people in this respect. I also belong to a small and smaller minority of people who have not yet experienced the effects of COVID.
As far as VFD is concerned I must confess that you provided me an easy excuse for not participating, something I do not enjoy doing and, what's more, I do not believe is beneficial to ENWQ when weighing all the pros and cons. BTW I initially posted my "sideswipe" by using the [Reply] button answering you, so I'll blame the software for the bad placement. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of COVID in the UK I am minded the situation is vastly improved compared to December 2020 when the household caught COVID in the "alpha" UK wave when we were unvaccinated and the only options were to quickly order a mail order SATs machine for next day delivery, ensure we had taken Vit-C, Vit-D+mg and lemon+paracatomol powder; and rest. Luckily none of us needed to go to hospital; some friends were not so lucky. Even visiting Ireland in July 2022 when up to date with vaccinations I was taking significant precautions including FPE2/3 masks on public transport when crowded and taking Covid lateral flows before and while at relatives. Since summer 2022 we have taken the view what with our vaccination levels and our beyond household contact risk points (Visits to Healthcare settings a few times a week) that COVID low exposure to Omicron was likely to be reasonably frequent while a major exposure overwhelming out body's first line defences was a reasonably high possibly. However while our existing vaccinations might fail to prevent infection (efficacy) their effectiveness in preventing a severe outcome was likely much better. Its probably the case there's more to fear from influenza that Covid. There's also some drugs to help immuno-surpressed. My personal opinion is the best thing for people to do is get a SATS gadget (clips on the finger). Anyway this is not meant to be a forum. My alt. account DeirgeDel has had a bit of nightmare on the Meta Wiki and particualarly Mediawiki Wiki I've had some issues in GUI modes myself, and from you explanation can see how this may temping not to place new volutes after the nomination, and wonder if a change to {{VfD-new2}} might help. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't fix some old terrible problems[edit]

Dear Ottawahitech, You have reverted an edit from an IP user in 2020, then I have to read for nearly an hour and get that enwikiquote has a history of terribly socking and disruptions. en:Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it, Thank you Lemonaka (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lemonaka: can you please be more specific: which edit are you referring to:

You have reverted an edit from an IP user in 2020

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your revert on user:Jedi3. Lemonaka (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lemonaka: In that case I wonder what User: Vermont will say about the fact that you have reverted their edit which I had previously restored on user:Jedi3's home page. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Ottawahitech, emmmm, Please have a check on WQ:AN's archive, then you will find why I have to revert your edit. Lemonaka (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gosh, stop[edit]

Please do not write something with all caps, this is likely to be hit by abuse filters against LTA:GRP and also makes others hard to understand what you are writing. Lemonaka (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Can you stop posting to my talkpage for a while, please Ottawahitech (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Blairs[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Blairs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 05:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you haven't already guessed I'm triaging through User:Djm-leighpark/US which derived from a snapshot[9]. For the most part with exceptions I'm going through top to bottom. Obviously I've just come to The Blairs on that list. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 05:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A page that you have been involved in editing, Wmf-wiki, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Wmf-wiki. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michelle Statham[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Michelle Statham, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Michelle Statham. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually only realised if was you who was the creator of this article after I'd raised the VfD. You'd have to accept my word on that. In many way's that was better as it didn't affect any actions I took in raising it and if I'd have known it was you I might have done something different, but I'm not exactly sure what. I have actually visited this article over 5 times and walked away wondering how to handle it. A PROD would be wrong. Simply putting a notability tag on would be useless. And I'm not prepared to create a Wikidata item off my own bat. Rather than prevaricate longer I've elected to raise a VFD although I have concerns with the number of VFD's on queue which I've a personal target of preferring to be 40 max, 50 at push and really want that under 60 so I am mostly loathe to raise additional ones above 50 but to notabilty tag or PROD instead when that action could be reasonably justified. In this case I felt I'd already spent too much time prevaricating and a VfD to settle the matter was my best option. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said you "have a possible issue with some gun video games and that has linkage to" your indef blocking, which reminds me I need to find time to investigate what happened to you at enwp. I personally do not like gun video games myself, but that does not mean that I am not interested in the topic. I am hoping, but not optimitic, that your vfd will get some of the enwq videogames-editors come out of the woodwork. I have been watching with interest to see what sort of improvements to enwq your deletion-campaign brings. So far, it appears that many more nominators are leaving messages on page-creators talk pages. This is a great contribution IMIO. It is very important to let volunteers know that their contribution to a wiki is not a waste of time. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My focus has actually been to minimize the number of Wikiquote articles without a sitelink from an associated Wikidata item directly associated to the subject of the Wikiquote. Another way of looking at that driving the number of pages on the unconnected pages in mainspace list towards logical zero. I define logical zero is when every page on that list is in a deletion process or tagged as a mergeto proposal, while possibly excluding articles created in the last couple of days. Reducing that list has meant sending pages that had issues into deletion/merge process/discussion where I am uncomfortable with creating &/or sitelinking a Wikidata item for them. This all at first glance would makes it appear I am on a massive deletion campaign, while its really more a focus on that unconnected pages list with deletion processes a side effect. I'm both focusing on new articles coming in (one sometimes need to give the a couple of days to settle) and gradually slogging through the list long standing articles in the tail. While I estimate there grew to be over 1800 of these circa 2022-12-01 if I remember correctly this was down to 1245 on 2023-01-01 and the list is now down to about 215. I don't have a precise breakdown but broadly I'm fairly sure circa 50 of that 215 are already in a deletion discussion; I estimate at least 50 will be able to associated with a Wikidata item without needing to go to a deletion discussion (remember this is the "hard core" remainder of what I haven't been able to sort on several passes of that list already); so I suspect that leaves 50 to 100 that are likely to headed towards a deletion process at some point. It unfortunate the effect of this on the length of the VfD queue which has reached 60 which I am really uncomfortable with: I'd prefer that queue was 40 or less or 50 at most. If I'd have left this process with over 300 on the unconnectedpages(mainspace) queue I'd never have faced returning to it. As it goes under 200 I feel I could come back and nibble at that from time to time if I need to; but I still might try to cut it down a little more before my main focus moves off of Wikiquote (and ideally more back to RL). Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not absolutely sure what you are saying, but I am not sure cleaning enwq up through the various deletion queues can achieve the goal of ridding us of "bad" articles, and retaining "good" ones. If you look at discussion at VFD for example you will inevitably discover how sparse it is. Reaching a well-balanced consensus for what to keep and what not to keep seems impossible to me? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the VFD discussions are very sparse. Can you think of a solution to this situation? -- (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for asking @ Here are some of my tldr-scrambled-thoughts:
Do we need all these deletion discussions at the English Wikquote (enwq)
  • keeping enwq free of wiki-bad content, whatever bad is
  • too many contributors spend their time in discussions while fewer and fewer add content, I think?
  • too many contributors spend their time nominating, going through the required elaborate learning curve, again at the expense of content
  • some unpopular topics get deleted which means they become the exclusive property of admins (and other fuctionaries?)
  • Deletion review is broken so trying to recover a page that was unfairly deleted is close to impossible (please lets not fix this, again at the expense of building content)
According to official statistics the number of active contributors at enwq has fallen from 188 in November 2022 to 160 in January 2023. I don’t know how we can get a rough breakdown of how many of those contribute mainily content, how many contribute maily to discussion, and how many are involved in things such as w-vandelism, w-spam, admin -actions, whatever. I also don't know if the Toal number of content pages is growing or not, and whether other contributors think it should be growing. User:Djm-leighpark (whom I try not to ping) believes this process is important to determine which enwq pages should be referenced by Wikidata (WD), I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even 100% effectively cleaning by deletion the subset of Wikiquote articles that have been on the UnconnectedPages list will have minimal effect on the majority of articles that are outside that subset. Having said that I suspect the percentage of articles on that list being problematic from a notability viewpoint is considerably higher than those not on that list. Quotability and article quality is a different matter and I'm not going there. If Wikiquote wishes to increase its quality it must first ensure new articles coming in meet the standard and then tackle existing articles. Suggest best not to upset me and divert me from the Wikidata magic and make me frammy, I'm an inclusionist softie at heart. Anyway the unconnected pages list is under 200, at least for the moment.-- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 16:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to upset or distract you, so I won't ping you.
I do have an issue, though, with what you said above: it is not the articles you are nominating for deletion that I have an issue with, but the effect this campaign may be having on the vulnerable group of enwq-editors who are trying to build up this quote compendium. I believe what you are doing is bringing more people into this project whose expertise lies in understanding the complicated network of enwp deletion processes , when what we need IMIO is people who want to add more content Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justin L. Smith[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Justin L. Smith, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Justin L. Smith. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, regarding your revert, when a page is in "Category:X by country|United States" then the "Category:X in the United States" is redundant, I think? (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@: Hi sorry for the delay in responding, for some reason I couldn't locate your post, and now I don't remember which revert you are referring to LOL. I don't know if you use the [reply] button to post? I find it really useful because it automatically indents and automatically signs your posts, so it saves me all the aggravation. You also get to see the preview of what you are writing in real time if you click the advanced link at the bottom of the input box on the left hand side.
BTW I saw how much effort you put into the deletion discussion linked from User: Saroj Uprety's talkpage and my heart went out to you. I don't know if you are the creator of that page, or just a Good Samaritan trying to save it, whatever. It reminded me of the bad-old-days I experienced in my very early wik-life at enwp many years ago, where some of my articles were nominated for deletion, but none of the discussion participants seemed to care how much work I had put into my creations. I remember it seemed to me at the time that most participants were simply fly-by-nighters.
Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about this edit [10]. Thanks. I have already forgotten about that deletion. I think you agree that we should not copy everything from wikipedia, like only allow articles when there is a wikipedia article, a compendium of quotes is not the same as an encyclopedia. I have also observed that the deletion discussions are very sparse and not enough people take the trouble voting. -- (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, I undid your edit you (I did not delete, only admins can delete) when you removed the most important item of the eponymous Category:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I am not sure I understand your point on that issue.
As far as not enough people participating in deletion discussions, I definitely agree. What's more there aren't enough people doing anything at ENWQ. Not enough participate in the Village pump for example, something I personally consider much more important than maintaining an elaborate deletion process with so many flavors of speedies, prods, vfds, drvs, and what-have-yous that even the admins here do not have a unified uderstanding of.
Anyway, back to work. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocks on other wikis[edit]

Hi Ottawahitech, I happened to notice this. You are a valued contributor here and I understand that you must be really upset for being blocked. If I were you, instead, I would ask the steward something like this: "You were the one who blocked me on [date that and that] based on [link]. I have been an active contributor and a community member on enWQ for a few years now. What would be the way for me to appeal the block?"
I apologize for jumping at you with this; I just want to make a suggestion (we should always keep positive in communicating with people). Just a thought. Have a nice day. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Emilijaknezevic,
Thanks for your advice regarding my posting at Tks4Fish talkpage on 2023-02-22. Just to let you know I was not really upset about being blocked at META, actually I was kind of expecting to be re-blocked at the time. What surprised me, though, was the fact that I was not blocked by a META admin, but by a Stewrd who is not supposed to use their Steward tools for this purpose, I think?. I was also surprised that Tks4Fish did this shortly after I posted a message addressing their threat to block me because of something I said in a discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh well. Thanks for responding to my curiosity and sharing the link. I think that he gave you the proof that he had the power to block you, regardless of the authority. It is better not to provoke people in power and to take their warnings seriously. If the situation had been opposite, you might have done the same.
As a matter of fact, if you had done something while expecting to be blocked, then it does not make any difference who was the one to block you. Does it? - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment: "misleading edit summary"[edit]

Hi Ottawahitech: Please see: Talk:Empathy‎ ... (→‎Question to: Ottawahitech... re: misleading edit summary) and please explain. Thank you. 15:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please sign your post[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you post messages on talkpages and Wikiquote pages, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your message. You may also click on the signature button which is above the edit window. This will put a signature containing your user name or IP address and the time you posted the message. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.

Here's my little advice, hopefully it can help you. You can have a taste of c:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions, this gadget will automatically sign your post in the right place.

Anyway, happy editing. Lemonaka (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susan Wojcicki[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Susan Wojcicki, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Susan Wojcicki. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. DeirgeDel tac 00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

discussion on RfA[edit]

Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying there was no general discussion section, like there was no general discussion section on the RfA for me – but I thought oh there is one here. By the looks of things though, it just seems to be a misunderstanding on my side :) --Ferien (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet archive[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Internet archive, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Internet archive. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. DeirgeDel tac 19:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Risto hot sir again![edit]

I am disturbed by what appears to be your continued pestering of admins for their blocking of Risto hot sir and associated socks. I note in particular your hijacking of Wikiquote talk:SheSaid#Turning up to present a case for the unblocking of Pludimir Vatin. In case you failed to notice Pludimir Vatin is an anagram of Vladimir Putin; who is a significant world figure who many in the world, rightly or wrongly, regard as controversial. Such a username is almost certainly unacceptable under Wikiquote:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames from the viewpoints of both those who are pro-Putin and anti-Putin. Even thinking of those of any side killed, maimed, and displaced in the special operation in Ukraine and the impact on their friends and family makes me dispair; let alone environmental impact on Mother Earth. Given your continued interest in global locks I assume you are aware of the page m:Steward requests/Global where there is a search box above the "Search in this page hierarchy" button. Placing "Pludimir Vatin" in that box should lead you to a result which identifies the page m:Steward requests/Global/2023-w12; and in particular I would expect you to find m:Steward requests/Global/2023-w12#Global lock for Pludimir Vatin. This indicates the block reason for Pludimir Vatin Long-term abuse: Risto hot sir; i.e. there was a good faith indication "Pludimir Vatin" is a sock of Risto hot sir. One obvious scenario is that the sock master is perfectly well aware that if they make a beneficial edit to one of your articles you are likely to act as a puppet badgering admins if their sock is identified and blocked. -- {formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 23:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ottawahitech: I'd concur with Lemonaka at Special:Diff/3273020 & Special:Diff/3273021; & "Special:Diff/3273024, namely quoting Lemonaka "@Ottawahitech I'd like to give you a warn, if you keep defending risto hot sir, it will definitely become disruptive and even more, proxy editing and meat puppetry. A lot of sysops have warned you about that, this is the last time. The next time when you defend some accounts that has been confirmed as sockpuppets of risto hot sir by stewards, I will contact other sysops to get a consensus of taking action. Best regards. Cc @Superpes15 and @Vermont, though I have a strong believe this thread is hijacked and highly disruptive." ... where "this thread" refers to the thread on #SheSaid. I'm reasonably certain Lemonaka and myself feel you should be given one very last chance due to the possibility you may not have been aware you were being used as a meetpuppet. I'd ask Superpes15 and Vermont and other local/global sysops to please note my request to give you one last chance. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A page that you have been involved in editing, Victim, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Victim. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When should one add #SheSaid to an edit summary?[edit]

I've been asking about when to add "#SheSaid" to edit comments (Wikiquote talk:SheSaid) and would be interested in your advice. Whenever I add a quote from a person identifying as female to that persons page I will add the hashtag to the edit summary; if it is merely a quote about them or attributed to them though I do not. So simply put: When should one add #SheSaid to an edit summary? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @CensoredScribe, thanks for asking about the shesaid campaign but I am not the right person to ask. As far as I know the campaign on enwq runs only during the months of oct-dec (or at least it did in 2020-2022). The campaign is the brainchild of User:Anthere (see: User:Islahaddow is the one who started the page WQ:Shesaid, but I am not sure how involved this user actually is. User:Koavf also expressed interest at the time . I believe all coordination of this campaign is at META (where I am blocked so cannot participate).
I hope this is helpful? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put some elements on Wikiquote talk:SheSaid last week. Sorry to hear you are blocked on meta Otta ! Anthere (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]