User talk:Rupert loup

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rupert loup, and welcome to the English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for your great work on so many pages. I notice you sometimes add more than one quote from the same source, and use separate bullet points for each one, which is fine, but then you only state their source under the very last one. The problem with this is that it makes the first quotes appear unsourced, which is discouraged. All quotes should be clearly sourced; repeating citations is actually not a problem. Of course in cases where the quotes are many, and you don't want to repeat the same citation over and over again, you can create a new section for them (as you've already done in a few pages), to make it clear(er) that they are all from the same source. Ok, thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for the advice. Rupert loup (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Six weeks after this comment you made seem to have repeated yourself in this edit, but not only that: From this very short online source (about 300 words) you took three quotes (in total 83 words) which is over 25% of the text, which I think is not inline with fair use policy. -- Mdd (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Information.svg Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikiquote:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. WikiLubber (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiLubber You need to explain why you are deleting the link, if not is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst linking can be useful, it is absolutely unnecessary, especially when it comes to highly common words that have slim to nothing to do with the story in question that absolutely do not need linking. WikiLubber (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiLubber I disagre, its not overlinked and Linking is part of the Wikiproject. You are damaging Wikiquote therefore is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing links, regardless of whether or not they are necessary, is not vandalism. Many articles here have no links (let alone the need for such). WikiLubber (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This is just plain trolling right now, you are deleting links without reason and specific those you don't like. Rupert loup (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Linking is clearly unnecessary here (a highly valid reason). WikiLubber (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I must be leaving soon, but will note that providing links to other pages on this wiki is common and approved practice. It is conducive to expanding interest and participation in the wiki and the ideas presentable on it. Removing links needlessly is simply investing in the promotion of ignorance and stupidity and an exercise in controlling and constraining the options of others. There can perhaps be excessive linking of duplicate links in a single section, but generally, the more links between pages of the wiki the better. Linking to Wikipedia for very common words or concepts is usually not necessary, but links to other pages of this wiki should be encouraged. ~ Kalki·· 00:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It must be noted that there were no links before my edits and in no way it is overlinked now. Also with his/her obsession with removing the link "Burqa" (which is not a common term) it makes me wonder if this is some kind of censorship or just trolling. Rupert loup (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Neither. It must also be noted that the term "burqa" is not only uncommon, but also not relevant to the story. WikiLubber (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

François-Noël Babeuf[edit]

Why do you feel the quotes you removed here are not notable? I fail to see a reason for their removal. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

UDScott, that quotes are not from notable people or works Wikipedia:Notability (people). See WQ:Q. Rupert loup (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not understand your rationale - and I don't agree. These quotes appear to me to be from notable sources and they seem to appropriately relate to the subject of this page. I am quite familiar with WQ:Q and I still fail to see the reason for removing them. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
How are notable? These sources don't have significant coverage to be considered notable. They are reliable to be used as a reference in Wikipedia for it's academic background, but not notable to be quoted in Wikiquote. If so please explain me why because I fail to see it. Rupert loup (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)