User talk:Ottawahitech

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

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]

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]

break[edit]

@~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]

If asking questions lead to improving content, then you're on the right track. ~riley (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[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]

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.

Help[edit]

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

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]

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]

@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]
... and now, back to work. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[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]

@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]
Bluntly put, many enwiki articles are not accurate, so buyer beware. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
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]
OK, points taken. Thank you for your advice! Joreberg (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

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]

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]

why was a reformat necessary?[edit]

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]

@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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
@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]

An option for Chinese economy?[edit]

Renminbi Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[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]
And, just to make things more complicated, don't forget Taiwan! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages policy[edit]

@Butwhatdoiknow: In regards to your posting at: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=2922680&oldid=2922674

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]

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]
@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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

@Ivalon Olavi: Not quite as dire as you paint it, but yes, all wmf-wikis are experiencing a drop in pageviews. See: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-access&source=pageviews&agent=user&start=2019-01&end=2020-11&sites=en.wikiquote.org%7Cen.wikibooks.org%7Cen.wikinews.org%7Cen.wikisource.org%7Cen.wikiversity.org%7Csimple.wikipedia.org%7Cmeta.wikimedia.org Ottawahitech (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the statistics of the main page.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thanks policy[edit]

Re:

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 ;) : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zezen who rarely contributes here.

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

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

and

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]

Update from a full screen PC: you wrote of a "Wikiquotien" not a "Wikiquotient" :), which apparently also exists, pacem https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wikiquotient (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]

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>

Bows

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

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]

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]
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]

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.

Bows,

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

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]

@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]

So have I here. See eg. the unexpected concrete advice: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Zezen#Sourcing

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 profiles[reply]

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

White[edit]

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]

@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]

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]

Pinging @DanielTom: Make sure DanielTom realizes we are not talking about them behind their backs :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[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]

SWViewer[edit]

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

Note[edit]

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]

  • 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]

Back?[edit]

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

:@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]
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]
No worries - yes, that was my point. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[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]

@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]

Revert[edit]

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]

Hi @Ferien:
I assume you mean my undoing of your removal at : https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_vaccine&type=revision&diff=3032007&oldid=3031998 ? If so lets see what others have to say. Thanks for posting, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is the edit I was talking about. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[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]
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]

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]

@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]
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]
@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]
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]

Categories/Subcategories[edit]

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]

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]
  • 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]
...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]

Enheduanna[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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]
    @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]

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]

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]
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]
@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]
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]

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]

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.
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
166.205.222.14 17:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @166.205.222.14: 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]

Your edit on 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis[edit]

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]

@Aphaia:
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]

Whoops[edit]

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]

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]
@Ferien Agreed I undid all(?) my edits. Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man[edit]

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? 107.122.97.17 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Wears Prada (film)[edit]

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]

@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]

"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]

@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]

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]

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]

Paywall[edit]

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]

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]
@HouseOfChange, thank you. I truly appreciate any help I get. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trust[edit]

(Comment removed)(Username removed) 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(Username removed) , sorry I don't understand your question. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
(Username removed) Just curious: have you asked other people the same unusual question? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
We just met a couple of days ago (I think?). How can you trust me? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
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]

(Comment removed)(Username removed) 14:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I like your list Ottawahitech (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 15:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Create a new template?[edit]

(Username removed) , 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]

I do not fully understand what you want me to make. – (Username removed) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
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]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

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]

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]

@Emilijaknezevic: Wow, thanks! Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
Thanks @UDScott I set it. I hope it works. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[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? – (Username removed) 15:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not off hand and I must leave vey soon Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment removed)(Username removed) 15:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
to do some non-ottawahitech things Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Username removed) , 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]
Done.
Edit: Here's an automatic one. – (Username removed) 23:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Automatic barnstar giver – (Username removed) [edit]

(Comment removed)(Username removed) 01:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

A barnstorm for you[edit]

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar


Automatic award request


Redaction[edit]

@Ottawahitech:

Can I have permission to redact my comments on your page? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, please just stop redacting comments. There is no need to at all. --Ferien (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I need to. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[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]
Please, I really need to. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[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]