User talk:PieWriter

Welcome

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

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

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! Saroj (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks :) PieWriter (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, PieWriter! I am just letting you know that I have added the rollback flag to your account, as you are a trusted user on Wikiquote. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a message at the Village pump. Thanks, Saroj (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! PieWriter (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

American football players from the United States

Hi, I noticed that you moved Category:American football players from the United States to Category:Football players from the United States. However, this is not correct because the term American in American football players refers to the sport w:American football, not the players’ nationality. Therefore, I kindly request that you move it back. Thank you. Saroj (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Should be done. Sorry about that I didn’t realise it was about the sport. Thanks for letting me know. PieWriter (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns for Marion Cotillard quotes

Hello PieWriter, the quotes added to the Marion Cotillard page currently rely on secondary aggregation sites such as IMDb and Quote.org, which are not considered reliable sources for Wikiquote, and quotations must be verifiable from a primary or reputable published source such as a dated interview, magazine article, broadcast transcript, or official publication (per WQ:VERF). Please review the quotes and provide original, verifiable references. Thank you. Saroj (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Saroj I managed to find some reliable sources, mind taking a look? PieWriter (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks. Saroj (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Congratulations, PieWriter! You now have administrator rights on English Wikiquote. Please take a moment to read Wikiquote:Administrators and watchlist-related pages (in particular Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

You may find Wikipedia:Administrators' guide to be useful reading. Please also check or add your entry to the list of administrators. Again, welcome to the admin corps! Saroj (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Saroj Thanks! PieWriter (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Congrats. 🫡 Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Wikiquote:Protected titles

Hi. Using Special:Undelete/Wikiquote:Protected titles, on the added page links listed there (which were intended to be protected from creation), please fully protect those pages by salting. I would recommend that:

1. You add yourself to the pseudo bot user group to prevent flushing the recent changes, and
2. Use JavaScript Wiki Browser (JWB) to protect those; information can be found at w:en:User:Joeytje50/JWB#Installation.

Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Time out. I saw you protected an existing article about a racial slur. Please don't do that; I have unprotected it already. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I dont understand how do you create protect using JWB, it just skips them. PieWriter (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Under the button "Skip", and under the section "Skip when:", please click "exists", left of "doesn't exist". This makes JWB skip existing, live pages, and probably only targets deleted pages. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste I think I did it correctly? Can you check? PieWriter (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed, and you did well. Just make sure that when mass protecting pages from creation, please follow my advice above. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! PieWriter (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

VfD Tool

Hi, this tool has a bug with discussion pages for articles that have been nominated before. When a page is nominated again, it overwrites the previous discussion instead of creating a new discussion page for the new nomination (e.g., "2nd nomination"). See the page history. Saroj (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh,Thanks for letting me know. I will remember to check when closing discussions with previous nominations. PieWriter (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I meant this is a bug in your tool. It should create a new discussion page for repeat nominations instead of overwriting the previous one. Saroj (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Will work on it PieWriter (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Saroj I have uploaded a new version. If there’s any issues, let me know! :) PieWriter (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I copied your script to my test user script (User:Codename Noreste/vfd.js), explicitly allowing Saroj (from off-wiki) to edit it as an experimental VfD script. Perhaps should we rename it to VfDHelper? Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 18:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for letting me know! I also don’t mind the name. PieWriter (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to add (with [[User:PieWriter/vfd|VfDHelper]]) to the script, as that's already handled by the tag. You can revert your last edit to the script. Thanks! Saroj (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, Okay! Thanks! PieWriter (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Avicenna image

Salut, I was looking in this page Avicenna and the image for the Philosophe is not good,can you add image for him ? merci d'avance ~2026-49829-83 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49829-83 There are some pretty okay images there, is there an issue with the current ones? PieWriter (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know but they depict him as a mystic character , I have seen a lot of people with similar image ~2026-49829-83 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49829-83 What type of images are you looking for? You can find most of the imgaes here.PieWriter (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas vraiment , but an image that could be uniqe to him and show him as a philosophe maybe like this image here which considered image la plus prisée or something like that , up to what you find best ~2026-49883-36 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49883-36 I added this, is it okay? PieWriter (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not know , but I think it is similar to existing one not unique to him, you are doing great job ~2026-49883-36 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It is very good image and being named as most valued image, but I think it do not deserve to be in Avicenna page just because it's unique and high quality, I could be wrong ~2026-50904-24 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so do you have suggestions on what to add then? PieWriter (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think a drawing by Muntadner I guess he also made al-Farazdaq current image, if you find it more representing for sure ~2026-50904-24 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You can see all the images by him here PieWriter (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

this is really helpful ! thank you very much , I think I've mistaken his name , but yes this is the image I think maybe be suitable for the Article , I don't know about what the guy who made this topic mean, but maybe it fits ? I really don't know ~2026-50904-24 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Thomas A. Blüm

Hello PieWriter,

you recently deleted the English Wikiquote article Thomas A. Blüm as “Spam, spambot page”. I believe this was a mistake.

The page was a regular biographical Wikiquote article containing four sourced quotations from published books by the author, with references to the respective editions. It contained no spam or automated content.

Could you please reconsider the deletion?

Thank you, --TitanBlue67 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@TitanBlue67 (pinging @The Squirrel Conspiracy as the nominator) Most of the sources on the pages are from the same reference and a quick google search showed no information about the author. Are there any other reliable sources that cover the quotes by the user? PieWriter (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@PieWriter

Thank you for raising the sourcing question. I would like to clarify the basis of the deleted article, because I believe the deletion as “Spam, spambot page” resulted from a misunderstanding of both the article’s content and the identity of the author.

The page was a conventional Wikiquote article about the author Thomas A. Blüm. It contained four quotations, and each quotation was explicitly sourced to a published book by the author, including the bibliographic information of the relevant edition. The quotations were not generated, copied from an automated source, or presented without attribution.

The books themselves are published works available through the regular book trade, including major online booksellers and bookstores. They have ISBNs and can be independently verified through bibliographic and commercial catalogues. The quotations can therefore be checked directly against the original published works.

There is also an independent author identifier for Thomas A. Blüm: ORCID 0009-0002-4777-396X. The ORCID record contains his publication record, including his books and more than 50 other research/publication items. This provides an independent way of establishing that the author named in the books is a real, identifiable author rather than an invented or anonymous source.

I therefore think the statement that a quick Google search produced “no information about the author” should not be used as evidence that the page was spam. Searching for the exact name “Thomas A. Blüm” produces substantially different results from a generic search for “Thomas Blüm”, and the author can be independently identified through ORCID and bibliographic records.

More importantly, the Wikiquote sourcing guideline states that quotations should be verifiably sourced, and specifically recognizes an original book as an appropriate source for a quotation. The guideline on sourced and unsourced sections likewise states that quotations sourced to an original book belong in the “Quotes” section.

The fact that these particular quotations have not yet been repeated or cited by other websites does not make the quotations unsourced. They are sourced to the original books themselves. Independent secondary quotation of a passage may be relevant to assessing the notability of a quotation, but it is a different question from whether the quotation has a verifiable source. Wikiquote’s own guidelines distinguish these matters.

I also want to emphasize that the page was not intended as advertising. It contained a small number of sourced quotations from published works, rather than promotional material or automated content. Wikiquote’s spam guidance concerns advertising and gratuitous promotion; that was not the purpose or content of the deleted page.

If there is a concern about the author’s notability or the suitability of the individual quotations, I am happy for that question to be discussed on its merits. However, I would ask that the deletion not be treated as a “spam, spambot page” deletion when the page consisted of four individually sourced quotations from identifiable, published books.

I can provide the ISBNs, edition information and the exact locations of all four quotations so that each one can be independently verified.

I would therefore respectfully ask that the deletion be reconsidered and, if necessary, that the article be restored for a proper discussion of its sourcing and quotability rather than being treated as spam. TitanBlue67 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@TitanBlue67 First of all, I wanted to clarify that I used the “spam, spambot page” reason based on how the page looked and the context at the time, rather than meaning that the quotations were literally generated by a bot. The deletion also wasn’t based solely on whether the four quotations had books listed as sources. My main concern was whether there was enough basis for an article about this particular person to be included here. The fact that the books have ISBNs or that there is an ORCID record can show that the author and their publications exist, but that alone doesn’t necessarily establish that they are suitable for a article.

If there’s additional information showing the author’s notability or why the article meets the inclusion requirements, I’m happy to take a look at it. I’m also fine with the sourcing being discussed separately from whether the article itself should exist. I’m happy to reconsider the deletion based on the evidence provided. I just think the question of whether the four quotations are properly sourced and the question of whether the author should have an article are two separate things. PieWriter (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my concerns and, in particular, that you are willing to reconsider the deletion based on additional evidence.

I understand the distinction you are making between the sourcing of the four quotations and the question of whether an article about the author is appropriate for Wikiquote.

I should also be transparent about my connection to the page: I am Thomas A. Blüm, the person the article was about, and I was the author of the deleted Wikiquote article and of the four quotations. The quotations are from my published books. I understand that this creates a potential conflict of interest and that it may warrant additional scrutiny. However, I do not believe that being the author of the article or of the quoted works, by itself, establishes that the article should be rejected or that its content is spam.

For completeness, I should mention that I have also requested the restoration of my Wikidata item (Q141453529), which was deleted at approximately the same time. The Wikidata request contains additional information about my bibliographic and scholarly record, including several established external identifiers.

For reference, these include:

• GND: 1392719143
• ORCID: 0009-0002-4777-396X
• ISNI: 0000 0005 2961 7861
• OpenAlex: A5121198971
• Google Scholar: rD5-U-gAAAAJ
• ResearchGate: Thomas-Bluem-3
• SSRN: 10814796

These records are maintained by established bibliographic, scholarly, and research platforms and provide additional evidence linking the same identifiable author to his publications and scholarly work.

The ORCID record currently contains more than 50 contributions and includes my published books. My books are published with ISBNs and are independently represented in bibliographic and commercial book catalogues.

The relevant books include the following ISBNs:

• English edition: 979-8170821297
• German edition: 979-8170578382

I mention these records not as evidence that Wikiquote should automatically have an article about me, but because they provide additional information that may be relevant to establishing the identity and publication history of the subject.

I will therefore focus the Wikiquote discussion on the specific question you have raised: whether the available evidence provides a sufficient basis for an article about the author. TitanBlue67 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@TitanBlue67 Thanks for clarifying. Knowing that you are the subject of the article and also wrote the article and the quoted works is useful context. I agree that a conflict of interest does not automatically mean the article should be deleted, and I’m not treating it as proof that the page was spam. It does, however, mean that I think the article and the sources should be looked at a bit more carefully. The identifiers and publication records you’ve provided are useful for establishing your identity and publication history. The main thing I’d still want to establish is whether there is enough independent evidence for an article about you, rather than simply whether the publications and quotations can be verified. If the evidence supports restoring the page, I have no problem with doing so. PieWriter (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Then I’ll wait for your consideration and will accept the result, whatever the outcome is.

One last thought: in the end, this is not really about me, but about the quotations :) TitanBlue67 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If I may, one option to consider (especially as there seems to be a question as to the notability of this particular person) is to move the quotes to a theme page - perhaps Artificial intelligence. The subject on which this person is writing is of course notable, and this might be a better fit. I had tagged the page for merge consideration before it was deleted. Just a thought. Cheers! ~ UDScott (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

VfDHelper moved as a MediaWiki gadget

Hi, your gadget (VfDHelper) has been moved to MediaWiki:Gadget-VfDHelper.js. If you plan to maintain it, you need to have interface administrator permissions. Thank you. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 13:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste I do plan in maintaining it, is there a process for int admin rights? PieWriter (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for interface adminship is that way. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 13:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Real quick, you must enable two-factor authentication before you have interface administrator access. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 13:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Noted PieWriter (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)