Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Create a new topic

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive

General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Reference desk
comment | history | archive

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.


Make each separate quote a separate article[edit]

I propose a radical (and possibly foolish) re-organization of wikiquote. That is to make each separate quote a separate article. And then do the main navigating via categories. The reason is that most quotes deal with several subjects and at the moment I see no easy way of navigating in the current structure. For example the one quote by J. Gordon Melton wouild have categories J. Gordon Melton, apostasy, ramtha, credibility cults, new religious movements. The alternative in the current structure would be to copy them to all these subjects, which I think is a wrong method. Or may be I miss something? Andries (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andries: There is a WMFlabs experiment that is basically like this: turning individual quotes into data items a la Wikidata. I am also working on a similar experiment myself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no issue with the current method.  Contrariwise, I see much potential problem with the suggested alternative.

With the current method, there is no difficulty in finding the quotes you wish.  If you wish to find a quote about cults, you go to cults.  It seems rather simple.

With the alternative suggestion, one goes to a cults category and, then what?  If there are fifty quotes about cults, then the individual must click on fifty separate pages to read them all.

A second problem will involve titling.  With the current method, titling is rather simple and rarely controversial, if ever.  But if each quote has its own page, what titles will we use for each quote?  Perhaps the quote itself will serve as the title, but even that 'solution' will eventuate problems.  Some quotes are rather long, and thus, when one begins looking through the categories, one will see a bunch of very long titles that will make it very difficult to read and to find that for which one is looking.  Further, since plenty quotes are rather long, plenty will invariably exceed the number of characters that Wikiquote allows its titles to include.  If we were to set a specific limit to the number of words that may appear in a given title, that 'solution,' too, will be problematic, as many quotes will invariably begin with the same first few words.

A third problem will invariably result: individual quotes will invariably be made into multiple pages.  I will use as my example a rather short quote from Spy, but imagine the the increased problem that would result if this were a particularly long quote:

Rick Ford:  What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick?
Susan Cooper:  I don't have any cats.

One user uploads that quote under Rick Ford: What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? Susan Cooper: I don't have any cats.  Another user, not knowing the quote is already on Wikiquote, uploads it as Ford: What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? Cooper: I don't have any cats.  A third uploads it as What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats.

Let's say a policy is made that names ought not be included in the quote titles.  We still run the risk of a second user uploading it as What are you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What're you gonna do, bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What are you gonna do, bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What're you gonna do? Bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What are you gonna do? Bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats.  (And what if someone comes along believing that the couple of lines that appear prior to these two lines ought be coupled with these lines? or the couple of lines that follow these lines? or both?)

New pages will be everywhere, and much harder to deal with as editors.  This opens us up to a fourth problem: it will be much harder to discern whether copyright infringement is occurring.

Finally, in order to transform from the current system to the new system, Wikiquote would need a complete and utter overhaul, which would probably take years to complete.

I'm sorry, I just don't think the suggestion is altogether practical.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikilubber is reverting my about sections.[edit]

As of today Wikilubber has reverted Toy Story 2, Monster Inc, A Bug's Life, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Dr. Do Little, Independence Day, Wreck it Ralph, All Dog's Go to Heaven, Discipable Me 2, Lion King, and Peewee's Playhouse. In addition they also reverted Hercules 1997 film's categories of having gods and incest; which is how all the other films featuring Greco-Roman gods are categorized. If there is a problem with my about sections I would like to know so I can stop wasting my time; personally though I think these are quite informative or else I wouldn't have made over two hundred of them. Thanks for your help. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Censored Scribe - I agree that the removal of the About sections is unwarranted - and I have reverted Wikilubber's changes. That being said, if such sections contain quotes that are not so memorable or of poor quality, they could still be removed - but just removing them simply because someone does not like having them is not reason enough. As for the removal of categories for Hercules, I am less inclined to restore the incest one - I am not sure that it should be included for this film, as I do not believe that incest is a major theme of the film. I will restore the cat regarding gods however. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you; I had the feeling incest made since for clash of the titans but not Hercules, even though neither work goes into any detail about it, I'm sure Disney would argue like with most of their fair tale adaptations the darker parts were left out. For the most parts quotes I've added to about sections describe some memorable behind the scenes detail like a ground breaking special effects advance, an alternate version of the script, or an actor or directors criticism or defense of a film. Plot summaries aren't very good though, I put those in for Knights of the Old Republic and Morrowind. I've found RPG developers have the least to talk about in game interviews for some reason; probably because game play is better advertised than plot twists; and plot is more the focus than game play in most. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
UDScott, can this be considered a "quote"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
One can certainly make an argument that this is a bit much (but there may be something of interest if this was trimmed a bit) - and its removal would not upset me. My point was to avoid the wholesale removal of such sections just because someone doesn't like them in general. Each should be treated on a case-by-case basis and held to the same standard of quotability as other sections. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. Hercules definitely has gods.
  2. I do not recall Hercules having incest.  I am highly sceptical about that notion.
  3. I agree with CensoredScribe, BD2412, and UDScott that Wikilubber is definitely wrong to remove about sections from films wholesale, that not-liking-having-them "is not reason enough."
  4. I'm not so sure I would place "alternate version[s] of the script" into the about section.  Consider, for example, the page I recently created for Limitless.  It has an about section, but this section currently only includes two quotes from the lead actor, quotes that I obtained from one of the bonus features from the Blu-ray.  I think it would also be appropriate to add quotes to that section from reviews of the film, and thus I find Rotten Tomatoes to be generally useful for helping to fill out about sections on film pages.  But, although I also included quotes from the alternative ending, I did not place them into the about section.  Rather, I gave them their own section.

    allixpeeke (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I will weigh in here to restate my support for having relevant "about" sections. If we have a page on a person, a book, a film, or other comparable topic, and there are quoteworthy statements that have been made about this subject, we should include them, on that page. BD2412 T 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    The problem is, most of what CensoredScribe has been adding to About sections is not "quoteworthy" in the slightest. I think he knows this, but he doesn't care – he only seems to be interested in increasing his edit count. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, WikiLubber was justified in removing those sections – not because "About" sections have no place in Wikiquote, but because the quality of the (so-called) "quotes" CensoredScribe has been adding to them (at an alarming rate) is so poor. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
If I cared about my edit count wouldn't I have a concrete number for my about count or at least list more pages to sound more impressive, concrete examples make for better arguments. Daniel Tom, which about sections have no acceptable quotes at all; be specific please, because I think Cloud being Musashi is if not notable on Wikiquote notable on Wikipedia; not so sure about Midgar being a Pizza. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here are some examples of the unmemorable "quotes" (not quoted by anyone anywhere) added by CensoredScribe, which WikiLubber rightly removed:

About Toy Story 2
  • 'We very much had to stick to the original designs to make it look like the first one. But the technical advances helped with things like the hair on the dog and the texture of skin on human characters like the Chicken Man'.
  • It was originally intended to make the humans more caricatured, but Lee says he's happier with the way they came out, especially Al 'The Chicken Man' , the greedy owner of the Toy Barn who steals Woody.
  • Lee Unkrich [1]
About Independence Day (1996 film)
  • All of this feeds into a sliding scale of villain power. Culminating with the aliens of Independence Day. Notice, in that case, that you no longer need incompetence or corruption of our institutions. Jeopardy takes care of itself. The invaders are so badass that even the United States government and military are allowed to simultaneously be both capable and good! In order to provide spear-carrier support for the two or three point-of-view heroes.
    • David Brin [2]
About Dr. Dolittle (film)
  • I did Dolittle for a particular reason. I wanted to do an extremely commercial movie. I love animals and I love Eddie Murphy, so I thought, "Here is a really commercial movie. I would never have thought I would have done something like this. The script wasn't particularly good when I started. It got a lot better, and it allowed me to form this company and hire Jenno Topping as my producer.
    • Betty Thomas [3]

There are literally hundreds of these. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Toy Story quotes I could do without, but the Dr. Dolittle quote is passable, and the Independence Day quote is fairly insightful. BD2412 T 16:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I always expected the about sections to be trimmed somewhat; to be honest there really aren;t any memorable quotes for alotof the CGI animal movies with comedian voice actors. Mmdgar being inspired by a pizza vs. Cloud being inspired by Musashi in Final Fatasy VII is a good example of what is notable and what isn't. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining importance in sub cultures.[edit]

Take for example the quotes currently on the graffiti page; I tried to include a world view of the subject which can make it a bit niche. Most of the graffiti artists I listed do not have wikipedia pages; there's about 200 listed, 130 of those being American, with entries averaging one or two paragraphs, [4]. Many of the scientists and video game developers I've quoted also do not have Wikipedia pages either; but have interesting things to say on specialized topics. I believe the edits being reverted by Daniel Tom fall under the category of niche explanation through unique quotation which for the people interested in those niches will be of use. Michael C. LaBarbera is just as quotable as Kathy Castro for small, one has a PhD. in Evolutionary Biology an the other is a dominatrix inventor much like Theresa Berkley. Also the quotes from James Kakalios, like the quotes for probability are of interest for more than one page as he's explaining scientific constants; same with these obscure but scientifically and ethically interesting quotes from this article on genetically engineered chimeras. Medical Research Humans Animals Regulation CensoredScribe (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Could my edits have a revue by the community, particularly the recent ones related to transgenics and colonialism?[edit]

  • I retire; 50 reversions after months of most of those edits being there is too much for me; between Peter and Danial Tom I have slightly more enemies than allies, not like I haven't been thanked or given a barnstar or politely educated as well. On rational wiki if I asked more than one question I would be accused of gish galloping someone; which at the time I didn't understand because I like to ask a lot of questions and am impatient. I wasn't aware there were continuing formatting problems like Peter1c has mentioned, the colon than asterix combination seemed acceptable; I think it's interesting these reversions and the 3 distinct sections made on my user page by Peter were all made the day category libertarian films was deleted. The only quotes reverted by Peter1c I am going to single out as being particularly important that they stay are for colonialism humanity and cell; I'm confused what evidence of notability is; it can mean different things to different people, sone requiring every quote be quoted before it is a quote and not just be memorable, insightful and potentially quotable.

The blanket criticism made of these revisions is that they are not notable; which would be a legit criticism if I was making pages for these people or some obscure work; as right now, unlike brainy quote, there isn't even a page for the Mona Lisa, I've added a section for works under the notability page. According to the notability page, "For theme articles in particular, quotations from notable people or notable publications that discuss the theme can be especially appropriate regardless of the frequency of the material having been quoted elsewhere, especially obscure or forgotten quotations that speak directly to the theme - this is one way Wikiquote is unique as compared to conventional compendia." The about sections can be tricky; which is why a lot of people don't do them; an atmosphere of 5 mistakes and your banned encourages one does nothing rather than risk making a mistake by thinking the CGI rendering of fur was particularly difficult in Alpha and Omega, that Halle Berry's weight lifting is the most notable part of the film Cat Woman, or that in Final Fantasy VII cloud is inspired by Musashi and Midgar by a pizza. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what, the 5th time you "retire"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think only the second seeing as it was only ever just a template that was added and this time on the village pump, I said I would around finals. So we've determined your exaggeration factor of X2.5. I'll but I will just say X2 though. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe, I had to revert your recent edit here for being irrelevant and unnotable. My advice is to be cautious when adding material and if in doubt ask another user or make an entry on the appropriate Talk Page. Better safe than sorry, especially considering that if you continue with this pattern of editing behaviour you will likely face some sort of disciplinary action. Your enthusiasm and good faith are appreciated and I think most users here would prefer to see you reform rather than be penalized and/or constrained in your freedom to contribute. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you IOHANNSVERVS; that means a lot to me. The Fullmetal alchemist is not on topic enough, the cult is just an aside. I'm done with the dialogue quotes; I'm also mostly done with adding about sections, it's just Disney movies left for me at this point, maybe another book; I can't find any J.K. Rowling interviews specific to just one book; or anything from Tolkien. I suppose I could make about sections for Shonen Jump manga as well; but that's really not that much and I don't particularly care to accidentally read a lot of spoilers. If I actually wanted to have the maximum number of edits I would basically just be spoiling everything I possibly could for myself as quickly as possible reading TV interviews. For movies, books, and video games the interviews don't reveal that much about the plot; but TV and long running manga interviews usually do. The major arcs in American comics tend to be crossover events that wouldn't really fit any one particular comic book series's page. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe basically goes looking for interviews and then adds irrelevant extracts from them to Wikiquote. If everybody did this, we would soon have thousands and thousands of (so-called) "quotes" in every single WQ page. Notability is out the window. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Tom, will you ever cite an actual example of my allegedly awful about sections; this is like the 4th time I've asked and you never provide one. If you did provide an example I'm guessing it would be one o the maybe 12 I've made for a 50 hour long RPG like final Fantasy; which requires just as much collaboration as a film but without famous actors and directors to quote; and instead programmers and designers who lacking wikipedia pages, so they must not be notable. Also, feel free to lead by example and show me and everyone else here what you think a good about section should look like, there's still hundreds of pages you could start one for. I have a few more about sections in mind for Disney fantasy and horror films; but other than that I'm done; everything else I have in mind for wikiquote will just be transferring existing quotes from one page to another, which is pretty unobjectionable. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Virgil#Quotes about Virgil, [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work Daniel Tom; when it comes to historical, religious, philosophical and literary figures you clearly have the skills. It was my mistakes not specifying that I wanted you to show me a good about page for works of fiction. I thought that would have been inferred through the context clue that I have made 0 about sections for historical and literary figures; similar to how you apparently have made 0 about sections for pages about a specific work of (often incredibly collaborative) fiction. Of coarse determining notability is easier when your pages subject is hundreds or thousands of years old compared to a decade or two. It seems we've rather different interests which only ever converge at the theme articles; even though I also do my fair share of thousand year old religious quotes; and I'm sure there's some more recent fiction articles you've edited as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove over-broad spam blacklist entry[edit]

Could we edit MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to replace:



# Anchor start so doesn’t match domains ending with



The entry quotes\.com in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (added in 1043549 by Cirt) is overbroad: it blacklists links to all domains that contain (in practice, end with), not just this one domain.

This is because it’s at unanchored regex, so it matches substrings, per mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist.

This can be fixed by anchoring it, prefixing with (?<=//|\.) (same MW doc).

Alternatively, could whitelist specifically ok domains, but that’s tedious.

Concretely this is due to wanting to link to (a useful site specifically for debunking supposed quotes) on Gautama Buddha, which yields the message:

  • The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter.
This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.
  • The following text is what triggered our spam filter:

Specifically, discredits the loose translation “Your work is to discover your work and then with all your heart to give yourself to it.”

Can we do this? Thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, see 2066346 for edit hacking around this.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I receive some dispute resolution with Danial Tom? I am pretty sure this quote is about computer models.[edit]

  • The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
    • Freeman Dyson, “Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society” in Edge, posted 8 August 8, 2007.

This quote was initially longer as you can see at the history for computer, but I have edited it to focus more on the computer modeling aspect; which it is also a critique of, jut as much as it is about climate change denial. I'm feeling there's some needless antagonism towards me given how frequent these wrongful deletions from Danial Tom have been; I'm not arguing about the fiction quotes here, who knows if Men in Black is notable for a theme article? I am arguing about the importance of the notability and importance of my quotes about science. I would like an apology from Danial Tom being called a 5 year old with mental health problems simply for that edit to the science page even though Kathy Cairo's description is mostly in keeping with the following quotes on genetic engineering which for all that it amazes and or terrifies, is also not notable.

  • If you start putting very large numbers of human brain cells into primates, suddenly you might transform primates into something that has some of the capacities that we regard as distinctively human – speech or other ways of being able to manipulate or relate to a human. These possibilities, at the moment, are largely being explored in fiction but we need to start thinking about them now."
  • Where people worry is when you get to the brain, the germ cells and the sentinel features that help people recognize what is a person, as opposed to a rat or a rabbit. Things like skin texture, facial shape, speech, replacing brain cells with human cells, allowing the development of human germ cells in animals. And particularly where there is any possibility of fertilisation within an animal.
  • Changing animals by putting human genes or cells into their structure is one way of making them more resemble the bit of the human condition you're interested in studying.

Daniel Tom is bad at judging the importance of scientists, and Peter1c accidentally deleted a quote from Buddha on meditation and has problems with formatting as you can see on my talk page. Peter has shown deletionist tendencies seen the page for crowdfunding; and needed reminding that this was a theme about a fairly recent phenomenon not a person. I would like DanielTom and Peter1c to both edit that page so we can see what their vision of wikiquote will look like for more recent or niche themes. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, now you trimmed the quote, but anyway, Computers and Computer simulation are not the same thing. As for the rest, please provide diffs of the specific removals you don't think were justified, I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Your edit to the Science page was not reverted by me [9] (but I agree with its removal). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference between computer models and computers is like the ancient Egyptian language versus the country of Egypt.[edit]

DanielTom keeps reverting a Freeman Dyson quote I'm trying to add to the computer page which criticizes computer modeling of global warming but also apps to computer modeling. I recently added a quote from the actor who portrays The Mummy about how there is some debate among linguists over the exact sound of the ancient Egyptian and Latin languages. I think this quote if from a linguist would sadly not be notable though it is from an actor; I would like to ask that the notability guidelines be rexamined in cases where the quote succinctly summarizes a finding a major breakthrough or limit in a field, as I believe my quotes on the brain page are worth including, and that there would be no doubt if they were cited by someone with a wikipedia page, like an actor.

I'll be taking a break for a while. This has been a great, mostly low stress, chance to learn how entertainment is made; and to read the the core texts of mythologies. Outside of historical documents and cable news political names though, there some problems with determining the importance of non fiction; mostly in science and business. I'll be working on finding McDonalds quotes that meet the "notability guidelines" that seem to differ by person and page. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That quotation you added to the Egypt page here is a very good example of an unnotable quotation. I have reverted it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Virgil and the typo edit wars.[edit]

I'm confused why even the alphabetizing is also being reverted when at least that is undeniably an improvement. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us speak of this at the Talk Page of Virgil here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Maxims of Chanakya?[edit]

I found this interesting collection of quotes attributed to Chanakya called Maxims of Chanakya. These aphorisms would seem to be applicable to a large number of theme articles in addition to expanding the Chanakya page. Just thought I'd mentioned it as I'm going to be busy for a while and won't have time to do it myself. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[edit]

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata & GLAM 'down under'[edit]

In February, I'm undertaking a three-week tour of Australia, giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikimedia's GLAM collaborations. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in Australia to come along. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The tour has now been extended to Indonesia. I'll be in Jakarta from 25-28 Feb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DanielTom and article ownership over ancient Rome related articles.[edit]

DanielTom only seems to care about my Rome related edits; and doesn't seem to have used control F to find all the Borgia's related edits in the Catholic Church page. I don't think it helps that before I joined wikiquote there was a vandal on Daniel Tom's user page pretending to be me "Atan Payte"; nor do the obvious theological and political differences between us seem to help. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Wikiquote admins haven't blocked CensoredScribe yet. Ningauble at least suggested that he be banned from Wikiquote, but then did nothing about it. CensoredScribe has already done incredible damage to WQ. It's unfortunate, but apparently he will be allowed to continue polluting WQ articles with (often off-topic) garbage "quotes" at an alarmingly fast rate, forever. And he even reverts me when I try to undo some of the damage. So, from now on, I won't bother to try to revert his non-notable irrelevant additions anymore, because he is just going to keep adding more and more. Maybe after (if) WQ admins do their job and block him, I'll consider wasting more of my limited time trying to clean up his mess. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that CensoredScribe should reform or face disciplinary action.
Let us examine the recent controversy at the Virgil page: CensoredScribe added a quotation [10] and DanielTom reverted it [11]; an edit war then ensued, whereafter I stepped in to support DanielTom's position [12] and added a Talk Page entry to discuss the issue [13]. Some dialogue was had but then the discussion faded out. Then, almost a week later, CensoredScribe re-initiated the edit war without discussion at the Talk Page [14].
This behaviour is not acceptable and neither are the provocative/antagonistic/disrespectful comments being made primarily by user CensoredScribe. Unfortunately this appears to not be an isolated incident either, but part of a pattern of disruption caused by CensoredScribe, who has shown either a lack of respect and/or a lack of comprehension regarding Wikiquote policies. I don't think banning is the right solution however, as the user has continually shown both good faith and enthusiasm. I would support and here suggest some form of mild disciplinary action being adopted against CensoredScribe, such as a suspension or a temporary restriction of some sort on their capacity to edit the project.
Signed, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
By disrespect do you mean the one time I said Daniel Tom was lazy; I figured that was acceptable behavior here based off the time I was called a 5 year old with brain damage by DanielTom. Also, in future Daniel Tom please list the last names of the authors the are reverting in the edit summaries, seeing as I've been asked to include much more than that information. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to be disrespectful and insulting. It is unacceptable from anyone, DanielTom included. Would you please link to where this alleged "5 year old with brain damage" insult occurred. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
[15] ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
In cases where CensoredScribe wants to reinstate quotes that have been deleted by other editors, I think he owes us an explanation—in calm, clearly reasoned prose free of invective and insults—explaining why he thinks the quotes are important and the removal was unjust. I have also perceived many of CensoredScribe's edits as destructive, and I would like to better understand the motivation for them. ~ Peter1c (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe tricked some people (including senior admins) into thinking he is a good editor by basically copying already-existing quotes from one page to another (which in itself is not a bad thing), but even there his reading comprehension is so bad that he often adds said quotes to theme pages that have nothing to do with them. Very sad to watch. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. I'm willing to help CensoredScribe with his reading comprehension if he agrees to stop the edit wars and engage in civil discussion with the community. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion many of CensoredScribe's recent contributions still fail to meet relevance and notability criteria. There are also some incredibly long quotes (in one case 8,700 characters!).

For example:

  • Addition to Self says more about the characters of the story than about the page topic.
  • Addition to Dimension says more about the "dream-place" of the story than about dimension.

How can we improve the quality control on the contributions? ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The vandal (CensoredScribe) is back. How about admins start blocking him for 1 day every time he adds an irrelevant quote to a theme page? Maybe then he'll start paying attention. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe has now exhausted my patience as well. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I am just back from a longer absence today than I had intended, after doing some minor editing on a page in recent days, which I intend to work on more later today. After many months of very limited involvement in many things, I have only recently begun returning to something closer to my previous levels of activity here, after being extensively occupied with other things, and with what little I have been able to discern of current situations and the character of many edits and responses, I agree that there has come a time for more extensive intervention to begin. I will probably make more extensive comments within a few hours, but am reviewing some relevant matters at the present time. ~ Kalki·· 17:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I just recently posted a formal warning of the danger of there soon being a short-term block, and perhaps eventual longer blocks, in a section of "Blocking warning" on the talk page of CensoredScribe (talk · contributions). Other editors and admins can comment upon the appropriateness or inappropriateness of my statements and such actions here. ~ Kalki·· 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Let us know when you finally block him. Just so people understand, as of today CensoredScribe has made over 7000 edits, so even if we review 20 of them a day, it will take us a year to review them all. And all of his edits need to be reviewed. Of course, if he is not blocked now it might take much longer – it will actually be impossible to keep up with him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't be back for a while and I've already stated what little I intend to do when I return consists of adding about sections to a few traditionally animated movies and lower budget fantasy and horror; as well as transferring religious figure quotes to theme pages (the larger and less controversial of the two tasks). This will basically amount to less than a month of editing that I'm in no rush to do. I'm estimate I've edited basically 80% of the theme page at this point; and although I do agree with my inclusion of a relatively small amount of quotes from fiction, (less than 100). I only recall doing this for Ender's Game, H.P. Lovecraft, Flatland, Dragon Ball Z,, Justice League, Batman TAS, Static Shock, Gargoyles, Farenheit 451, Brave New World, Blade Runner, and 1984. Of these, only the quotes from non books were targeted for reversion, with the exception of the Lovecraft and Flatland quotes being objected to by Peter1c; but not the Ender's Game quotes. I really don't know what's so objectionable about the writing from Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie; I was even thanked for adding Gargoyles to the war page. I can understand getting rid of the comic book quotes for Earth X and Batman; as well as the video game tales of Symphonia; but again, even all together these edits don't add up to that much, just 1 video game, 2 comic books and 4 cartoons. I still think the DC cartoon quotes are at least as good as all the X-Men movie quotes scattered across theme pages by others.
Right now however I'm kind of tired of basically writing papers for fun, than writing more papers for school. It's been a while since I read any fiction, I would rather do that than look up interviews with Phillip K. Dick and Robert Heinlein. I'm not really interested in doing more science right either. I haven't found many actual news stories regarding A.I., though I've found certain kind of computer technology news coverage limited, like how the love algorithms on dating sites aren't actually open to scientific peer review as a trade secret. I don't really feel like quoting theoretical black hole physics from Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking either. I will not be going though the wisdom of the Simpsons or any other movie, TV show or film; as I' not watching anything or reading anything new at the moment and I'm done with what I've seen before.
It shouldn't actually take you that long if you work with a partner who reviews from the other end than it would only be 10 a day which takes a lot less time than reading through 10 articles and formatting the selected quoted from them for wikiquote. I also don't think it will be worth your time just to prove you are a better reviewer of my edits than UDScott and everyone else who has spoken to me about problems since I arrived.

Could you please sign your comments? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodbye everyone![edit]

I'm leaving as of now; which is fine, as I didn't have much else to add, just organize. I have learned a lot editing wikiquote, both in terms of information and interpersonal relationships/public writing. I really liked the about sections for entertainment, as well as learning more ancient religious history. I think the additions I made to theme pages lie Comics, Graffitti, Genomics, Film, Television, Small, Video Games and Animation are all improvements, even if they are quite nerdy and niche. Please let me know what you have thought of my editing here and thank you to anyone who helped me learn the ropes. I would appreciate it if someone took a look at what Peter1c DanielTom and Ninguable are doing in regards to my edits; as I don't believe there recent revisions of some of my edits actually help. CensoredScribe (talk)

@CensoredScribe: I appreciate your work and I respect that it can be difficult to collaborate. I hope that you find a way to add what you can at this project as well as at our sister sites. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to hear when other people find these interviews interesting; or when I can bring interesting excerpts from history to the surface. I have a couple of practical effects monster movies in mind; as well as more interviews about traditional animation (I have barely even started television) and lastly transferring the quotes from major religious figure's pages to theme pages, but other than that I think I actually accomplished my goals. I'm not learning any other languages right now so I don't think I will be moving on to wiktionary. There were only a few people I couldn't find many interviews for, I think Rare and Katsuhiro Otomo. I was expecting the final fantasy writers to be more difficult to get something for than J.K. Rowling or Tolkien but that was not the case; I think it is because the final product for them is the writing itself, so they can't write about it as much without giving it all away. Also the more books in a series it seems the less likely you will find an interview for any particular entry; in much the same way interviews about a particular episode of a show are rare; only in that case there's more writers to choose from. I think J.K. Rowling may actually have less interviews applicable to Wikiquote, than even the research scientists in the news interviews I've been adding. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Warrant block?[edit] - Seems to be a troll. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Normally this is not the place to specify anonymous IP trolls or vandals. I blocked that IP for a month, because it had been used previously for nothing other than vandalism, but the Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress page or the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard would be more appropriate places for such notices. ~ Kalki·· 07:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit rusty as I just returned. Thank you! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal: CensoredScribe[edit]

I propose that CensoredScribe be temporarily banned for disruptive editing. He has been repeatedly warned by other users to reform his behaviour and has failed to do so; habitually reverting others and adding large amounts of too-oft irrelevant content to the project.

This proposal authored by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please place your statement of support or of opposition below:

  • Support As nominator for reasons given above; IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment : I do not support this action at this time. I have considered BLOCKING this person on a few occasions, but have refrained from doing so. I believe he plainly lacks some forms of intelligence and reasonable discretion which most people might be accustomed to expecting, but I am not convinced that most of the examples of these are actually acts of malice or deliberate vandalism. It is IMPORTANT to be cautious in use of terms, and "banning" is a word that usually implies permanent expulsion on the Wikimedia projects — which does not seem to be what you are suggesting. I would object to blocking this person for more than a week or so at present, nor would I wish to do so eventually more than a few months, even if some problems persist, but greater temperance is shown. I don’t have much time to stick around right now, to discuss matters much, but might be back within a few hours. ~ Kalki·· 23:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • Comment: I am on the same boat out of here for a while as Kalki; I just had a few loose ends. Also IOHANNVSERVS, please leave a message on my talk page when you propose banning me before any kind of block. Also please cite specific examples of why I should be banned instead of saying bad editor. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please be more cautious in what metaphors you use: "on the same boat out of here" might imply to some that there might exist some personal relationship which does not actually exist. As far as I am aware, I have never met you, and have not even spent very much time familiarizing myself with most of your edits here. I am simply indulging in a bit of paranoia in stating this here — to make that as clear as possible, even to the most extremely paranoid — who could of course assert such a disclaimer was actual evidence or even "proof" of such collusion — but so goes the world. ~ Kalki·· 23:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the "I am busy with school" from CensoredScribe, he's probably like me back in 2013/2014 (merely a kid). He should simply take a break, as what I did. A ban will simply just "Scare" away the editor, and WQ needs contributors (I got quite the list on my projects!), not contributors who used to contribute until they were banned and forgot the site. I always feel like we should take the better route, and give more chances, rather than a out of the blue ban. That happened to me back when I was a young kid in 2010, I was constantly banned and locked... but thankfully I'm still here today, editing several projects (including en.wikibooks) as a sysop, and a regular contributor here at WQ.

All in All: Give him a break, if he continues to disrupt the project more and more, then a temp block of 6 months (and increase as time progresses) should suffice. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Metaphors are dangerous, they work better in one sided poetry and novels rather than conversation, and even than there's purple prose. Also yeah, I got kicked off Wikipedia my first semester at University because I was taking the wrong classes and got greedy and speedy with edits, thinking it was a good idea to copy TV tropes before anyone else did, which was a big mistake because there's more tropes than acceptable categories; like anime about monsters you can but a lot of product about; which isn't officially a genre advertisers use. I believe that is an uncyclopedia article actually; I was fortunate to write for them at the same tie I was writing at RationalWiki, which I kind of regret ever going on because of how incredibly mean the experience was after the first month basically. I mostly learned about sad news stories that are too specific for Wikipedia to list on the page of specific religions I guess, even when they involve the head of the religion. Sort of exactly what I did here on the catholic church page; which I suppose is the only page on wikiquote that editing Rational Wiki really helped me with making; and which in fairness I've had to defend more than any other page using debate skills I acquired like knowing when to quit and beg for the help of others; and not even mentioning you can google a subject on Encyclopedia Dramatica because they dox; which is a scary subject that seems to effect people for trivial reasons as suggested by Gamergate and dog poo girl much less something people actually vote over like abortion. Rationalwiki have neat things to say about astrobiology and geologically dating the earth, and I guess you might enjoy it if you like debating, or studying the remarks of politicians, which I don't.
I don't think pointing out that I repeated the exact same overly competitive academically distracting behavior here with categories only here it worked every single time. I regret it and doubt I will be allowed back on Wikipedia; but don't regret learning more about entertainment on Wikiquote. Now I need to write several papers though, as much as Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer and Jurassic World are important to analyze before moving on to Disney movies, I really have go or explain why I failed my classes for the first time because of the internet instead of just cutting it uncomfortably close and making my life needlessly more difficult than it needs to be. My one regret is that I could have done half as many CGI movies and have the other half of the Disney animated canon by now which I hope someone else will make about sections for, while I'm gone. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck CensoredScribe! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Can any admin look at this history page and explain to me why CensoredScribe hasn't been blocked yet? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you heard of the American legal concept of innocent until proven guilty or burden of proof? I imagine if you edited Rationalwiki you would have called for a bad on Miekhail for his refusal to use punctuation? Also please; if you want to make an argument list specific examples instead of barking monosyllabic responses like BAN!!! UNMEMORABLE!!! REVERT!!! It's like the dog with the translation collar from Up but without any of the niceness. List maybe 3 examples of what you think are my worst about sections and you willhave constructed a 1 page argumentative essay instead of losing an edit war for the 10th time in a row. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A model for "Misattributed" section?[edit]

New to Wikiquote; please be kind and explicit as well as informative.
I'm looking for a model to examine for a Misattributed section, for which I would like to expand a bit on the reason for the misattribution.
The Dionysius Lardner page has a quote labeled as Apocryphal that is the crux of my interest. I scrounged up some info I documented in the previously empty Discussion and am now trying to figure out how to add a sentence, maybe two, on the Page itself to help others interested in the genesis of this apparently false quote.
First, could somebody verify that the section title should be changed to Misattribution?
Second, could someone cite a few Misattributeds that both explain a putative reason of the false quote and cite a key source in that reason?
In a few days, when I get this done, I'd also be happy if someone could come in and check my work for format and style.
Thanks for the help.
—This unsigned comment is by Frphnflng (talkcontribs) 22:18, 8 February 2016.

Hello, Frnphnflng, I appreciate your courteousness. Here is a pretty good example for a misattributed section.

When contributing to discussion pages, such as this one, please sign your entries.
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's another one here: [[16]]. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'd appreciate your opinions on two things in the edits I've just posted. First, I think there's probably a more efficient and compact URL to link to the crucial SciAm stuff I found, but I don't know how to work it out, or whether it's worth bothering. Second, I've stuck an entry in the External Links to Lardner's volume on pneumatics, in hopes somebody with a physics background or HVAC experience will want to go verify the absence of a missed source there. Is that a valid practice or not? Of course any general comments would also be welcome, and thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS, for teaching me to sign my Talk entries. Frphnflng (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me what you've done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Making an article on the album Liquid Swords...?[edit]

Hello, I started working on an article about the music album Liquid Swords. I then realized I could not find a single article of a music album on Wikiquote. Is there a hard rule against making articles on music albums? --Snowmanthirteen (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotes from lyrics to songs are very welcome, but usually they are presented on pages for the individual song-writers, or the groups which collectively have created them. Sometimes sections for albums have existed, but thus far I don’t believe there have been any pages for albums — but a redirect from such a page could be made to a section of a page for a group or individual artists. ~ Kalki·· 22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick tips. I'll make the article as an experiment. If there is substantial resistance against it, we can move the produced material to the artists' article. (an article in need of work...)

Question on the links where these quotes came from[edit]

I'm currently in the process of cleaning up/improving the page Leonardo DiCaprio, and I've come across several of quotes sourced back to A list of quotes (with no sources) by Leonardo Dicaprio...I don't know... should I remove these quotes as they have no proper sourcing? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Request a check for a page[edit]

Hello. Please check Peter Ladefoged and see whether there are problems with that article. Cheers. Peter238 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Atcovi's suggestion[edit]
It's pretty good. But key points (my opinion)
  • You can simply do "About", rather than "About Peter Ladefoged"
Instead of doing
  • on his contribution to his field
    • “He did extensive linguistic fieldwork on a scale it had not been done before, and when he brought it back from the field he found ways to use sophisticated laboratory equipment to analyze his recordings.”
      • Patricia Keating, UCLA
I recommend
  • He did extensive linguistic fieldwork on a scale it had not been done before, and when he brought it back from the field he found ways to use sophisticated laboratory equipment to analyze his recordings
    • Patricia Keating on his contribution to his field, quoted on [I don't know what you mean by UCLA, link to the website where you got the quote from!], [website], [date]
And as well... instead of putting the website in a reference
  • on why he chose to pursue phonetics:
    • “I wanted to find out why Shelley could write better-sounding poetry than I.”<ref>Los Angeles Times, 1970</ref>
I recommend
  • I wanted to find out why Shelley could write better-sounding poetry than I
    • Ladefoged on why he chose to pursue phonetics, quoted on Los Angeles Times [you have your source, can you link a website?], 1970 [you got your date, anywhere you can find the month and day?]
  • Make sure to read other pages and copy their quote styles
  • Don't add "dead people" if they are dead, add the year the person died (in this case: 2006), and add it too a cat: [[Category:[whatever year he/she died] deaths]](in this case: Category:2006 deaths). But it's different if the person is living... add a person who is not dead to: Category:Living people
  • Expand on intro, I recommend to put it in your own words
  • Move unsourced quotes to talk page

Hope this helps Peter238. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter238 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2016[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I am from the Dutch Wikiquote and we had an discussion about copyright on Wikiquote. Have a look here. Beste regards, Graaf Statler (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Daniel Tom actually right about me or has he mostly been losing edit wars?[edit]

I'm glad Daniel Tom decided this wiki is big enough for the both of us; he seems to have mistaken this wiki for Planet X from Duck Dodgers or perhaps a VH1 behind the music documentary about the band breaking up. I am concerned about their revisions of the Spider-Man film page and continuing unexplained antipathy towards me and unwillingness to communicate on their talk page. I'm also quite tired of calls for my banning and request that DanielTom be given a slap on the wrist in the form of the shortest block possible which is RationalWiki's way of saying hello. Or even just one of the admins mentioning the number of edit wars Daniel has lost and how they never suggest short term blocks even for first time "vandals". I really don't care about Daniel Tom one way or the other, I just dislike being threatened all the time with banning. Being accused of being every other editor also sucks, but that's more of a problem with MarnetteD on wikipedia than it is here; which sounds a bit like Fregoli delusion or perhaps unexplained spitefulness that no one would be any the wiser to; seeing as we can't read each others facial expressions while posting and written words can be interpreted as being in different spoken inflections by different people. A wiki has more in common with a secret society where everyone wheres' a mask than with an actual community; in many ways there's more interpersonal communication buying a Starbucks; for all you know I'm just an A.I. with bad grammar. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I will note that you did post on his page, just prior to your post here, the threat: "I'm would like to patiently listen to what your probelm is with me; assuming you are willing to state what exactly it is. Otherwise I will ask that you be blocked for 3 days to remind you that you have been wrong more often than not about me."

In another recent comment on another user's page it is noted that "quotes that are hard to understand without context are problematic as candidates for theme pages" — something which has been pointed out to you before. There are of course many arguments which can be made upon such issue, but you seem FAR more inclined to argue thus for what most regard as relatively trivial relevance or worth of statements, than most are.

Against the patience which has been shown toward you by many of us here, you have now begun to insist that others be BLOCKED for being "wrong about you". I believe that MOST of us CAN perceive that you quite evidently are WRONG and INCOHERENT in MANY of your ASSUMPTIONS and ASSERTIONS. I can concede that this person has asked that you be blocked, but I believe, for the most part, for QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE reasons. I will also acknowledge that this person sometimes goes about trolling in his own ways, with his own forms of exaggerative assumptions, for what I have little doubt he perceives as rational reasons. I always perceive far more irrationality in ANY such impulses to deliberately irritate or denigrate ANYONE, or even to justly deride them without some clear NEED to protect others, than any element of genuine and profound rational integrity.

To those who have had the time to examine many of your contributions there is an increasing consensus among regular editors of the pages that your additions OFTEN, if not USUALLY have low merit, significance or noteworthiness, and often are poor examples of anything more than mundanities, rather shallow and obtuse sensationalism, or deliberate deprecations of various ideas or subjects.

I confess I increasingly tend to believe there is strong evidence that you ARE inclined to simply TROLL, with a quite evident DESIRE to deliberately irritate others and to pollute this wiki with LOW quality quotes which promote or present many of vilest inclinations and observations of some with a prominence which they do not merit. I currently continue to refrain from blocking you, because I recognize that you could simply be a person with very incoherent forms of intelligence and idiocy, and through little or no deliberate intentions manifest an extensive lack of rational cohesion to your thoughts and emotions, beyond a rather intense drive at justifying the presumed equality or superiority of your tastes and ramblings with those who have generally been recognized to have more discerning awareness and appreciation of various diverse forms of genuine wisdom.

IF I, or any other admins do decide to block you anytime soon, for generally detrimental activities, I will here suggest that it be for at least 3 days to indicate that you have been wrong more often than not about what can be justly and properly tolerated by others. I myself currently refrain, but commit myself to do so ONLY as of now, as I provide you further opportunity to CONSIDER many of the objections to your actions as NOT necessarily targeting you, but targeting the increasingly evident tendency to provide poor and even generally detrimental additions, which many have tended to regard as being of very little significance or worth. ~ Kalki·· 21:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

I 100% agree with Kalki when he says that CensoredScribe has been "pollut[ing] this wiki with LOW quality quotes which promote or present many of vilest inclinations and observations of some with a prominence which they do not merit." I'm actually very worried about this. And I honestly don't understand why Kalki doesn't do anything about it. CensoredScribe is single-handedly bringing Wikiquote's standards down to (at best) Wikia-level – which is where he gets most of his terrible "quotes", when they are not from random unmemorable interviews. Now he is bragging that he "wins" edit wars. It's true: if you revert the garbage he's been adding to Wikiquote, you can expect him to revert you back (usually with a taunting edit summary pointing to other pages he's vandalized). That, to me, is even more tiresome than the mental torture that is having to read through the tediously-long unmemorable "quotes" he's been polluting Wikiquote with. But, to be fair, he reverts admins (Ningauble) too. And nothing happens. It's very sad. Wikiquote has no self-defense mechanism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Going back to what Kalki said (in green), perhaps I can illustrate it with an example – I'll even be charitable (in the sense that most of CensoredScribe's additions are much worse than this) and choose a quote of semi-decent quality (meaning, from a notable author/source) – just go to the theme page Mothers, and see what its very first quote now is, thanks to CensoredScribe:
  • In the 1980's a number of stories about mother-son incest were reported in the popular press in Japan. The elements of each were remarkably consistent: An adolescent male entering the period of intense study leading up to entrance exams is distracted by sexual desire. His mother, who has assumed the role of a kyoiuku mama [education mother], notices the distraction and worries that it will obstruct the boy's work. To prevent this, she offers to become her son's lover and thereby satisfy his pressing need. The boy complies and the two commence an affair. The sexual relationship, found deeply pleasurable by both partners, quickly turns the boy into a model student. In the end the boy typically passes his exams and is appreciative to his mother for her help. The incest, however, does not end. Rather the confusing relationship between man-woman and mother-son is left unresolved at the story's close.
Amazing. First quote about Mothers, is about them having sex with their teenage sons... Must be perplexing to Wikiquote readers. (Compare:
  • How vastly important is it, then, for mothers to have a higher regard for their duties—to feel deeply the immense responsibilities that rest upon them! It is through their ministrations that the world grows worse or better.
which used to be the first quote (added by me), before CensoredScribe's insightful addition.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the incest quote. We have a page on Incest, and this quote is already included there. It is not exactly on topic for "mothers", merely because it happens to include the word. BD2412 T 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me an idiot Kalki; it was less mean than brain damaged 5 year old like DanielTom called me, or 12 year old like on Rationalwiki; or everything you do should be erased like David Gerard, Ryulong and DanielTom. You at least say the number of my eit s that should be deleted might be close to 50%. I guess when you do it; it isn't bullying. I asked for the smallest block because of bullying which I believe is an acceptable reason; I should have used the word bullying instead of being wrong about me. SO want is bullying to someone who calls others idiot children? I can tell you are both incredibly angry about the Marston edits; and I imagine also for Kalki the pig edits when coupled with Al Qaeda which you correctly read in between the lines of. I'm glad there aren't really many good quotes about Caligula or I tried on Rationalwiki. Also Kalki as you again accuse me of being a sadist I must assume you would not allow David Gerard to edit having edited a lot of bestiality pages on Wikipedia. Also why isn't what be highlighting what Wnt said about embryonic stem cells an issue to you if it is just some stupid little kid BS that would cause immune rejection or possibly make some ones, burn wounds seemingly disappear? Must not be important or real or else someone would have mentioned it to all those nice people would have liked to have known. I do back flips finding science and religious quotes to technically avoid soap boxing about the way others can just put up a quote from the bible supporting bigotry. I mean it clearly doesn't cure AIDS but I'm confused why no ones even tried to see if it works the way Wnt suggested on the science reference desk thread started by Bullets and Bracelets on April 1st 2015. Now if you are citing my recent editions to Embryo feel free to revert them and the Evolution quotes while you are at it so everyone can understand that isn't acceptable here.
I quickly asked for the shortest block for DanielTom bullying me because I realized 3 days was Rationalwiki's idea of lenient; which isn't very nice or helpful at all. If it was just reverting me a lot I would call for Peter1c but I'm not because they have always at least been polite, unlike Daniel Tom or recently you Kalki. I apologize for comparing Daniel to the Dog from Up; just as I'm sure David Gerard if he started editing here would have to apologize for saying I peed on his carpet like a dog. Ryulong would have to apologize for calling me a fucktard, than apologize for cleaning his user page history of looking in civil in a way that isn't remotely allowed. MarnetteD would have to apologize to all those users who are forever banned from Wikipedia even though they aren't me; apparently Wikipedia can't search IP's from over 3 months ago or write them down on a piece of paper. I don't recall adding any more "corrupting" articles like the other atrocities I chronicled for RationalWiki and Wikipedia.
I came back because I had some quotes about one of the few Super Hero movies I haven't made an about section for, 1 important science paper on bio ethics, and a few major religious figure quotes. I'm not finishing all animation related articles or going through more specific religious figures. I'm not adding any mor CG talking animal movies or anything more about what William Moulton Marstons academic writings might be about today. I called Daniel Tom some names which was a bad idea, I guess CGI dog crosses a line in a way idiot 5 year old doesn't. Also notice Daniel Tom not he pissed mostly because that authors name ends with A and that he only started caring today yet clearly saw it during the 2 weeks I was away like dozens of others.
I get that I'm still not welcome for what ever reason. Kalki I imagine this is over the pig edit and Al Qaeda edit that were coupled to suggest something, and not really the Kyoiku Mama from the book on Marston; seeing as drone was not listed as a new page and no ones corrected the name to be what ever the correct term should be. I'm not the first person to think of what you think I was thinking, and I'm not endorsing trans species religious torture or advertising the drone program, but these emerging technologies need to be talked about or they will only continue to develop in secrecy by known millionaire war mongers who might secretly also be sadists of some sort; maybe sexual as well as simply professional.
I'll actually take a month or two this time; I doubt that in the mean time the pope will have a a talk on robots replacing nurses and teachers. But if he does I might just add that unless you suddenly decide to punish me for things done months ago originally to no objection in the meantime; I'm confused what I did wrong today other than emulate the foul language used here. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe YOU and MANY people have MUCH to learn about "bullying" and many more extreme forms of fascist impulses and presumptions — and how OFTEN they are ACCEPTED and PROMOTED by those who CLAIM to be "victims" of others bullying or fascism, arrogance, terrorism or tyranny. Adolf Hitler CLAIMED to be the defender of "noble aryans" and the "Germanic races" against "bullying" Jews and "oppressive" Poles, and "sub-human" Slavs — all of whom he deemed to be worthy of nothing more than slavery and EXTERMINATION. Benito Mussolini and others believed their brutality to human beings they considered their "inferiors" was "proof" of their own absolute "superiority". Though even they had some forms of boldness and "efficiency" in inspiring or driving people to actions which some in their ignorance and confusion, for a very brief time admired, they were beyond all dispute or denial, quite certainly in many ways conceited, cowardly, bullying imbeciles, as MANY of the boldest fascists, arrogant terrorists and intolerant tyrants usually are — and ultimately brought DISASTERS upon Humanity and themselves. MANY ancient and more modern examples CAN be provided.

In the present time it is considered by many pissant factions of idiots quite admirable and advantageous to denigrate and deride other factions who do not share their religion, their nationality, their political affiliations, or their ethnic characteristics of various kinds. I certainly DO call others idiots at times when I believe it is necessary and proper to be honestly harsh against many of their evident CONCEITS. I also do so because I am quite willing to be called an idiot — because I actually KNOW that relative to an ESSENCE of ALL Awareness, Life and Love which I revere as BEYOND my limited notions and conceptions I too am but an IDIOTA. I very rarely directly deride ANYONE with any terms which cannot with SOME form of rationale be applied to ME as well — though admittedly much more tenuously or even absurdly, by those who are plainly very ignorant and confused about MUCH. [Some of the previous statement has been a digression indicating some aspects of mystical discernments which I do NOT presume all others would easily understand, or agree with, and I initially commented it out, as not entirely necessary to my point, but I realized some of my further statements would not be as clearly understandable to at least some, without plainly including it.]

I will note that the word "idiot" is NOT something I fear to be used against me — NO WORD IS. The intention of limiting the capacities of other human beings to progress from ignorance and confusion towards knowledge and wisdom, through ANY means, INCLUDING the posting of PROFUSION of LOW QUALITY CHAFF and DRECK, and calls to accept any absolutist or mechanistic NONSENSE as if it were an epitome of wisdom is something I quite honestly abhor.

I am NOT inclined to block people for merely insulting me, or disagreeing with me, or with most people, as MANY cowards ARE — but IF you persist in primarily presenting postings which seem DESIGNED to disrupt, insult and denigrate others and the normal standards of others, there will certainly be AMPLE reason to block you for far more than 3 days.

After correcting a typo here, I left for a brief excursion, and must soon leave again, perhaps for a longer time, but wanted to check in here before proceeding on to other tasks. I will probably be back within a few hours, but KNOW I have many other things to attend to in coming days, and expect to very busy with many of them for at least another week. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Refrain from insulting other users CensoredScribe, especially with pretty overused insults too. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to temporarily block CensoredScribe[edit]

Acknowledging that there have been some definitely worthy contributions by CensoredScribe (talk · contributions), as well as many marginally acceptable or even generally irrelevant, strained or inappropriate additions, I continue to refrain from personal direct action and a merely individual decision to BLOCK this person at this time. I am declining to block him, at present, without further assessments and input of others who have been involved here: I actually DO believe it might be about time to BEGIN blocks upon this person's editing privileges for extensive periods.

I will note that after some of the above assertions Censored Scribe made here, in which he offered some hope that he might conceivably even be sincere, honest and reliable in his assertion that he might be gone "a month or two this time", he posted some rather trivial or irrelevant and perhaps merely spiteful additions to a few articles. I did not check all these edits, and some I left or did not check might be arguably acceptable, but even those I did check seem so only in rather strained or marginal ways, but others can easily at least seem to be malicious and clearly aimed at degrading the quality and worth of various pages, and this project as a whole.

I reverted some of those I checked, and provide them as examples of what I believe to be relatively poor and for the most part irrelevant and low quality additions:

On the page for Peace his latest additions, between generally sober, somber or inspiring quotations he placed this one:

  • Ghostface Killah: You say what you want that old crazy goofy looking motherfucker is coming back. Your granddad's nigga moment ain't dead yet.
Huey Freeman: :Well, what am I supposed to do? If death can't stop Stinkmeaner, what can?
Ghostface Killah: Think about it? Peace.

I am at peace with such quotes on pages of the show they are taken from, even if they are of dubious worth, and ANY assertions of generally appreciable worth, on any pages, even if they contain what many would consider simply "profanities" or "vulgarities", but I fail to see how anyone other than a perversely conceited person committed to disruption can be inclined to post some of his ABUNDANT additions in recent months to the THEME pages. I believe some of these at least SEEM primarily aimed at simply posting or promoting an abundance of vulgarities and distasteful associations, and finding ways to INSIST that he "should NOT be stopped" BECAUSE it is not necessarily easy or even possible to rigorously FORMULATE or precisely identify or agree upon what is so BLATANTLY WRONG to MOST people about MANY of his postings. I believe that it is NOT necessary to rely upon any rigorous formulations to recognize that there definitely IS a persisting problem.

On the pages for Guns and Terrorism he had included this one, which he apparently seeks to insist is a brilliant example of wit and wisdom, with the edit summary: "Very much about making people afraid; which I believe is the incredibly poor nebulous of terrorism, no?":

  • Gin Rummy: He does have a gun, officer, trust me! The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
Officer Frank: I don't see a gun!
Ed Wuncler III: Man, fuck this shit! Who's side are you on? Mine, or this motherfucker who's obviously of terrorist descent?
Officer Frank: Wait... I think I can see the gun now.

I actually prefer to generally allow other people to remain as FREE AS POSSIBLE to make reasonable, honest and passionate arguments, and NOT needlessly constrain their abilities to be honest and passionate in their appeal to both reason and feelings, but also know that if people are plainly irrational, incoherent and hypocritical, and insist ANY or ALL others are merely stupid or oppressive and not worthy of ANY respect, for not simply agreeing with them, following them, or obeying them, their tastes, and demands, then measures usually MUST be taken to protect others from UNJUST intrusions upon general society, or specific individuals or groups they might seek to target for abuses, insults and unjust oppressions, often from sense of "revenge" or "spite" for not being sufficiently respected.

In the first seen and the last reverted of his recent additions, I will list was this entry upon the generally somber and sober assessments on the page for the September 11 attacks:

  • Huey Freeman: Excuse me. Everyone, I have a brief announcement to make. Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the government is lying about 9-11. Thank you for your time and good night.
  • I'm trying to explain to you that Ronald Reagan was the devil! Ronald Wilson Reagan? Each of his names have six letters? 666? Man, doesn't that offend you?

This has an INCIDENTAL mention of a conspiracy theory regarding the attacks, of only MARGINAL relevance and little noteworthiness, and for the most part is an absurdly irrelevant tirade including several forms of further conspiracy theories, NONE of which seem all that notable in the quality of the observations they provide, for generally interesting quotations on this or ANY other THEME page.

DanielTom (talk · contributions) in some of his above comments, with somewhat understandable frustration, insisted that Wikiquote was not being properly or sufficiently defended saying "Wikiquote has no self-defense mechanism." I actually disagree with this, as I believe it is generally of the greatest safety to human societies as a whole to provide people the opportunities and freedoms to show their genuine genius and generosity OR their limitations and even their pernicious pettiness and presumptions to a very great extent — even if it is often AGAINST those who are generally generous and tolerant — but there ARE necessary limits to freedoms, within the realms of Justice and Liberty. I believe that Censored Scribe has sufficiently provided ABUNDANT examples of a persistent disposition to mar and degrade the wiki, and it is probably time not merely for censure and repudiation of some of his assertions and additions, but active protection against them.

ONE of the many reasons I have restrained myself up to this time, is that I genuinely do believe this person, whatever some aspects of his intelligence or dispositions may or may not be, probably lacks some forms of normal PERCEPTUAL abilities, and thus cannot clearly discern some of the things being INDICATED to him — and cannot clearly perceive the lack of understandable coherence, relevance and applicability of some of his assertions, or expressions which do not always clearly assert much of anything.

Even with the above information, and the plethora of past problems which have clearly persisted to a great extent, I am NOT proposing a permanent BAN, at this time, which I assume would more greatly please many who believe this person definitely has been more inclined to be disruptive than contributive, and perhaps very deliberately and maliciously so, but I am inviting comments on what the length of time for a block upon this person's activities should be, and at this point I believe even a month would not be extraordinarily excessive nor merely punitive, but simply protective and probationary act of warning that far longer terms might be deemed appropriate, or far more conditional capacities to edit here imposed, IF additions which seem largely or primarily irrelevant, of low significance or value, or even spitefully insulting to various forms of the general sense and sensibilities of others persist. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 07:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Block of 1 month proposed by Kalki[edit]

With the levels of disruption which have occurred, over an extensive period, in which CensoredScribe (talk · contributions) has been regularly warned against some of his apparent lack of concern for the lack of relevance or notability of many of his additions, among other things, I believe that a block of 1 month might be appropriate, to start with. I will notify him of this, to provide him a better chance to make any defense he might wish. Unless there are severe disruptions which impel more immediate actions, I propose this block to last from March 4 to April 4.

  • Support ~ Kalki·· 07:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC) (as proposer of this block — as an initial measure of censure, caution and opportunity for reconstructive corrections on the part of others, and further considerations on his part.)
  • Weak Support I'm usually all for "forgiving" and "forgetting", but if "quotes" like on Guns and Terrorism are his way of "quotes", then a one month block is surely needed! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I for one actually believe that CensoredScribe is really guilty of what I would call the Barlet's syndrome of thinking that the mere mention of a topic in a quote means that the quote is automatically about that topic. Just because a word is included in a sentence does not mean the sentence is about that word (which is the way that the Bartlet's Familiar Quotations index works). That being said, while I do not necessarily believe there is any malice in his/her actions, I do believe the time has come to take a break while we as a community attempt to clean up the mess that has been left behind. There are now many quotes that really do not belong here as a result of this user's activities. I also do not favor a permanent ban, but perhaps this user will take some time to reflect on all that has been discussed. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think that CensoredScribe (talk · contributions) could become a valued contributer one day, but the current levels of disruptiveness in his editing can not be allowed to continue. Hopefully this ban will catalyze his reformation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just performed the block on CensoredScribe for one month, and hope that this will be the last such block we deem necessary. I believe that this editor can become a less troublesome presence in the future, and can become more generally appreciative of the qualities of quotations which are deemed noteworthy enough to include on most of the pages of the wiki. ~ Kalki·· 00:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter1c and what the community thinks evidence of notability means.[edit]

Please review the last 3000 or so edits of Peter1c using control F for CensoredScribe; it might take maybe 5 minutes. I'm curious why Endder's Game or an episode of South Park or Gargoyles meets Evidence of notability yet none of those other revisions to fiction are notable enough. I'm not doubting there' a couple of clunkers but the explanation for deletion should be that they don't explain the theme; instead of using this as a chance to create a new standard for excluding works before drawing up a more clear community consensus. Most of the exclusivity seems to be on cartoons and Doctor Who but not really any other film or live action TV; lots of games cartoons and comics though that don't count as quotable. Also I came back for the day by the way, I won't revert until I have something to add which should be a while. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings[edit]

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Detailed justification for reversions and deletions[edit]

Kalki's assessment that CensoredScribe's recent edits have been diluting the quality of theme pages seems to me exactly right, and very articulately expressed. Some of CensoredScribe's complaints seem to indicate that he is looking for precise guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Toward this end, I have been working on giving more precise feedback on why quotes have been removed. It definitely won't be practical to do this for all the removals. There are far too many quotes that need to be removed. But I thought I would try to explain my logic for at least a few of the removals. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries would have also worked several months ago when you began this process; but thank you. If you could please again explain why Ender's Game is about Intelligence yet these quotes are off topic.

Breaking Bad quote in Science[edit]

  • Skinny Pete: What do you think all those sparkles and shit are? Transporters are breaking you apart right down to your molecules and bones. They're makin' a copy. That dude who comes out on the other side? He's not you. He's a color Xerox.
Badger: So you're telling me every time Kirk went into the transport he was killing himself? So over the whole series, there was, like, 147 Kirks?
Skinny Pete: At least. Dude, no, why do you think McCoy never liked to beam nowhere? 'Cause he's a doctor, bitch! Look it up, it's science!
This a great w:reductio ad absurdum for the science fiction idea of the transporter, but it's only tangentially related to the article topic. It would be far more relevant in science fiction. ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm curious what other concepts that would work for though other than the transporter. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Watchmen quote in Randomness[edit]

  • Rorshach: Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
Was Rorschach.
Does that answer your Questions, Doctor?
Proposed shortened version:
  • Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
I restored a shortened version of this quote. The first three or four sentences are relevant to the article topic. How are the rest relevant? Reducing quotes to only those portions that are clearly relevant to the article topic will make for better articles.
The quote also requires a more detailed citation. If this is a comic book series, why doesn't the citation specify which issue from the series? What about a page number? ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Trying to compile these from online fan sources instead of the original materials has drawbacks like abbridged quotes and lack of citations. The edit is good, surprisingly the marvel wiki doesn't use page number for quotes, though issue is essential. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class quote from Pride[edit]

  • Mystique: Hey, Beast! Never forget - mutant and proud!
    • X-Men: First Class, screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn
To justify its inclusion in a theme page, a quote should tell the reader something new and interesting about the article topic. Merely having the article topic mentioned in the quote isn't sufficient. What does this tell us about pride? Perhaps that it should be more inclusive? What was the justification for including "Hey Beast!" in the quote? What does this tell us about Pride? ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Proposed shortened version:
Excellent X-Men slogan worthy of a T-Shirt akin to Magneto was Right; your great at editing these.

Doctor Who quote in Torture[edit]

  • They were tortured. My mom. My dad. My sister. It wasn’t the Doctor’s fault, but ... you need to be careful. Cos you know the Doctor. He’s wonderful. He’s brilliant. But he’s like fire. Stand too close and people get burnt.
    • Doctor Who The Sontaran Stratagem written by Helen Raynor
To justify its inclusion in a theme page, a quote should tell the reader something new and interesting about the article topic. Merely having the article topic mentioned in the quote isn't sufficient.
This quote tells us about the story and its characters, but what does it tell us about torture? It tells us that a case of torture occurred in this particular story. It tells us about who was at fault in the story. It tells us about the virtues of one of the story's characters. But what new and interesting information does it convey about torture? ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like this quote much either because it's mostly about the Doctor; unlike the Alan Moore quotes on Guns or the Dragon Ball Z quotes on Strength. I think the majority of bad quotes I add are from Doctor Who actually. I would however like to mention the doctor who quote on immortality you reverted was quite appropriate as it is about the concept and was uncontested at the top of the page for several months. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back quote in Evil[edit]

What new and interesting information does this quote tell us about evil? Three-fourths of the text pertains only to the characters of the story and says nothing about evil.
Proposed shortened version:
This still doesn't really seem all that notable to me, but it would be better. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The only quotes that could qualify as words of Wisdom in Star Wars are from Yoda or Obi-Wan; topically it is slightly better than I love you. I know. for love or No Luke I'm your father. Or something something dark side.
Though the dialogue in Star Wars is as Seth McFarlane parodies it and not particularly enlightening to the human condition, though I think this works the way you've edited it.

The Boondocks (TV series) quote in Logic[edit]

Each quote should convey new and interesting information to the reader about the article topic. This quote tells us something about what the narrator is defining as a "nigga moment." But that is not the theme of the page. What does the quote tell us about Logic?
If a story defines its own term for illogical behavior, that may be interesting in the context of the story. But how is it relevant outside that context? The quote must be understandable and interesting to those who are not familiar with the story and its characters.
You are right about this Boondocks quote which isn't really about any particular subject; I don't think wikiquote needs this or the 6 letter derogatory word for gay men as pages; even though there's that quote from Nixon about Bohemian Grove and plenty of other historical figures using course language. However Kalki is wrong about the other 4 Boondocks quotes which are on topic. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who quote in Listening[edit]

  • Doctor: They wanna overthrow the human race and destroy it. Do you believe me?
Rose Tyler: No.
The Doctor: But you're still listening.
The quote tells us something interesting about the characters of the story. But the page is not about the story. It is about Listening. What new and interesting information does this quote provide about Listening? Maybe that one can continue listening even if one doesn't believe the person speaking? But in that case, why is the first sentence relevant? ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually this is about listening; in the sense of paying attention. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Boondocks quote in Listening[edit]

In your description of the addition, you mention that the White Shadow works for the NSA. Once I know that, the quote is at least funny, even if not profound. But the audience reading the page will not know this. We have to assume theme page quotes will reach an audience unfamiliar with the works from which the quotes are taken. The quotes must be independently understandable, without relying on knowledge of the story.
Proposed modified version:
* If you ever want to talk, just remember - I'm always listening.
** Aaron McGruder, NSA agent in The Boondocks (TV series), season X, episode X, The Real
It still probably doesn't meet notability criteria, but this would be better. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does every episode of South Park exactly; why isn't the acclaimed Batman the Animated Series episode with teh joker fish notable either? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Avengers quote in Freedom[edit]

  • Professor X: Oppression is no excuse for vengeance -- for murder. I wonder... does the death of innocent people -- cut down on the streets as they flee -- free you? I think not.
If many Wikiquote readers held the belief that murdering people as they flee would free them, the quote might be interesting. But this belief, and the reasons for it, are particular to the story and its characters, and can't be understood outside the context of the story. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Umm...that's wierd. Projection isn't always astral. This quote was added on Martin Luther King day as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Boondocks (TV series) quote in Vision[edit]

  • Mr. Uberwitz: I would really love to see your vision.
Huey: Vision? What do you know about my vision? My vision would turn your world upside-down, tear asunder your illusions and the sanctuary of your own ignorance crashing down around you. Ask yourself... are you really ready to see that vision?
Does any vision cause our own ignorance to come crashing down around us, or is it something particular about Huey's vision specifically that is so devastating? I think we need to know more about the contents of Huey's vision in order to really get anything out of the quote. As it is, the quote says nothing about visions in general, only about one particular one with which the audience is unlikely to be familiar. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Again you're being weird this clearly does act as an example for the term Vision; would you prefer Thor from the Avengers Age of Ultron instead? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi CensoredScribe. I have to say I find the statement "You're being weird" very problematic, for several reasons. (1) the word weird in my experience simultaneously carries a negative connotation and a connotation of difference from the norm, and therefore carries a value judgment that difference from the norm is somehow a negative thing. The word weird is problematic for the same reason the word queer is problematic. It implies that being different from the norm is somehow a vice. (2) When the content of discourse shifts from discussing the subject matter at hand to discussing the character traits of the discussants, this is problematic. This is what is often referred to as an ad hominem turn in the discourse. Until now we were discussing the quotes and their merit for inclusion in the Wikiquote collection, not the merits and character traits of contributors. Why did the discourse suddenly shift to the character traits of the discussants?
In regard to the substance of your argument, I agree that the quote acts as an example of a vision. The principle I am articulating is that offering an example of the article topic is not sufficient. The example either has to be notable in its own right, or it has to tell us something new and interesting about the article topic. What does the audience learn about visions from the quote? ~ Peter1c (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

To VFD, PROD, or Speedy?[edit]

I have this question a lot when I go through pages (such as Sidh Daniel Losa Mendiratta) in Special:ShortPages... so the question is... should I open up a VFD for this page for community opinions on the page? Should I PROD this page so the author has 90 days to improve it? Or should I speedy tag this page since this page seems to have no sourced quotes (as well as nothing that pops up in a quick google search). What is the answer? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

First, let me correct one thing: when a page gets a PROD tag, there is not a 90-day period in which to improve it, but rather a 7-day period to do so before someone could delete it. As to your question, for such a page, I would likely first go the PROD route for not having sources. You could actually use a speedy tag, but I usually give the benefit of the doubt and allow some time for someone to add sources. If it is not fixed within the 7-day period, then it would be deleted. If the author (or someone else) of the page removes this tag without fixing the problem, then I would go the VFD route. Hope this helps. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. At en wikiversity we have a 90 day period. Anyways yes this helped, thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

minor mention[edit]

I just came across this: Omer Aziz, writing for Salon, links to Wikiquote as a source for a quote (which he slightly misquotes): article; Ctrl+F "Recall that this is the same man who said ..." ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And again in The Huffington Post: "I can only respond how Pierre Trudeau responded to Richard Nixon: I have been called worse things by better people." (also slightly misquoted). ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Brief vandal block on BD2412[edit]

In order to protect the wiki from concerted and deliberate disregard of consensus preferences, which had been dominant on this wiki from the very earliest MONTHS of it existence, I initiated a 1 hour block of BD2412 (talk · contributions). This is about to end, and I believe a massive amount of my own and others time will be expended on this rather petty attempt at imposition of a petty standard AGAINST community preferences.

IN the past there have several disputes over the years, where BD2412 has insisted on ravaging the pages of this wiki with stylings which have several times been CLEARLY rejected by the majority of others involved — or indeed ALL others than himself, and has clearly refused to desist from doing so, apparently so long as there are not clearly defined rules FORBIDDING him from it. He has often done this to HUNDREDS of PAGES at a time, OFTEN with some minor formatting enhancements which are NOT in discord with community consensus — making the TRACING of his actual IMPOSITION of this styling MORE DIFFICULT and PROBLEMATIC.

Prior to this I had provided fair warning, and reminded him of the fact that he was AGAIN disregarding consensus on the matter, posting to his talk page, the declaration (which in my hurry, had some slight grammatical flaws):

Please DESIST from AFFLICTING this WIKI with ANOTHER RAMPAGE of INCONSIDERATE VANDALISM. You have done this in the past and it is DISGRACEFUL. Time and time again, over the YEARS the CONSENSUS of the people most active on this wiki have agreed that this is NOT a styling desired on this wiki — and you have IMPOSED your SOLITARY obsession with IMPOSING it OVER the work of others in what amounts to contemptible FANATICAL DISREGARD for the clearly stated CONSENSUS. I will call that you be blocked for a week or a month if you persist in this disregard of consensus — and might initiate a more immediate block if you persist in your disregard for the clearly stated preferences and desires of others. I defer from stating more at this time — but I will state I have contempt and disgust at your will to DISREGARD consensus and WASTE other people's time like the most petty of vandals.

Over the past year I have gradually removed only SOME of the pages INFECTED with his obsession to IMPOSE such stylings AS IF they were the preferred ones, and using the edit summary "remove unneeded & unwanted use of an extraneous styling which is clearly against community consensus" when doing so.

I have no doubt that BD2412 is CAPABLE of respecting consensus determination, and HOPE that he will do so, but fear that he might insist on there being a legalistically BINDING consensus determination FORBIDDING such stylings before he would desist from IMPOSING them to the fullest extent he desires.

As is quite PROPERLY the case, I believe there is generally little will among MOST people here to IMPOSE standards as a MANDATE which others MUST obey — and I have made clear I believe he SHOULD be free to ADD material stylized in whatever way he finds most convenient, and others can ADJUST such additions to conform to general preferences — but he should NOT impose those stylings upon pages generally, NOR insist that such stylings as he prefers should be RETAINED, even on quotes or pages he himself adds.

He has recently requested that my 1 hr block be removed with the rationale that:

"Kalki has no right to block me over an editing dispute, particularly where he is undoing punctuation on pages that I created in the first place, like Last Judgment."

I assert that this is NOT a mere "editing dispute" — it is an act of OPPOSING a clear DISREGARD of the PRINCIPLES of the wikis and respect for community consensus that HAS REPEATEDLY REJECTED such stylings, and he seeks to FURTHER disregard proper wiki principles by seeking to claim "ownership" of the page for the Last Judgment. where I noticed he was persisting in imposing this styling which has been REPEATEDLY rejected by MOST others who have stated their opinions — and has NEVER been accepted as a standard here. He has EXTENSIVELY disregarded and I believe on many occasions has probably deliberately TARGETED out of SPITE pages I had created with his OFFICIOUS SOUNDING "drives for consistent punctuation" to HIS preferred way.

IF this behavior persists — I know a further review of PAST actions will be necessary — and will amount to a further waste of OUR time, so I call on him to desist from this behavior which I consider arrogant, spiteful and even malicious — and clearly in disregard of the community preferences established from the earliest days of the wiki.

I have many other things to deal with, and must be leaving again soon, for at least a short time, and genuinely do NOT wish to be WASTING much time in battling the PETTY IMPOSITIONS of a styling AGAINST the community consensus which he seems once again intent on making upon others, but if it is necessary I will elaborate further on the discussions on these matters which have occurred in the past, and which he has disregarded and neglected, such as can be presented in coming days. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

  • Contrary to Kalki's fevered imagining on the subject, there has never been a consensus for a particular punctuation scheme. This is, therefore, nothing more than an editing dispute. There is certainly no basis for a block asserting "vandalism" for adding periods at the end of sentences. BD2412 T 01:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • BD2412 is FEIGNING clear obliviousness to the FACT that I, and others have NOT objected to periods at the end of sentences — but to NEEDLESS and UNDESIRED placement of them at the end of credit lines — which are no more necessary or preferred than mandates that there be such punctuation at the end of all "title" headings. There has never been a consensus on establishing ANY OFFICIAL punctuation scheme — but there has REPEATEDLY been CLEAR consensus AGAINST that which you have clearly wished to IMPOSE. You seem to be insistent that until there is clear OFFICIAL MANDATE for something else or AGAINST your own, you will not respect the CLEAR consensus.
I do wish to note that I tried twice to remove this block with the summary "I believe he is capable of reasonable deference, as am I — and will not proceed in IMPOSING an UNPOPULAR styling upon the pages of the wiki." Both attempts declared no such block exists — so I am not sure what was going on in this regard. ~ Kalki·· 02:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
It seems that I tried to unblock him at the very time the block was expiring — I hadn't been aware it had been that long — as I have also been busy with other things — and time passes swiftly. So it goes.… ~ Kalki·· 02:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Kalki, you should have asked an uninvolved admin to place the block, not do it yourself unilaterally. Punctuating citations, even if against community consensus, is not "vandalism" (under any definition). What I don't understand is, if you were willing to write a long post on Village Pump explaining the block after the fact, why didn't you do it beforei.e. first ask here whether the community believes BD should be blocked? (Probably because you knew the answer would be "no", right?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
NO — I was simply aware that such behavior had gone on for HOURS at a time previously — as I believe you are as well — and that BD has repeatedly scorned most entreaties that he desist from such actions, even when there was UNANIMOUS agreement against the desirability of such stylings, and requests that he stop imposing them. ~ Kalki·· 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, punctuation of citations is neither for nor against community consensus. I can point to a number of articles that are fully punctuated that I have never touched, so clearly it is not just my thinking that it's an appropriate formatting style. BD2412 T 02:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Of COURSE you can point to a few articles of people who have adopted this AS IF it were a standard here — AFTER many YEARS of your periodic rampages of HOURS LONG SESSIONS of placing it on HUNDREDS OF PAGES AT A TIME with bots — despite the clear objections of others to such actions — and requests that you STOP such inconsiderate behavior. I don’t have time to stick around much longer, but can only request that you continue to defer from such impositions, at least until once again, further expositions can be made on the reasons why I and others have objected to your behavior. ~ Kalki·· 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
Maurice Cowling, created in 2006 (years before I ever engaged in any punctuation drives), never edited by me, fully punctuated since its creation. BD2412 T 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not doubt that you could find others, as well — such styling is NOT unknown, and I have never claimed it was — it was used extensively but not exclusively prior to the 20th century — but relatively rarely since, though there are a few "prestigious" works one could cite which continue to use it — it is NOT generally popular nor accepted as proper. ~ Kalki·· 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have noted before that most of the public domain collections that I have incorporated into this project have been fully punctuated, and it is more of a bother to remove periods at the end of the select citations than to add them uniformly. On this project there is not, and never has been, a consensus for or against such punctuation. Therefore, it is an editing preference, hardly "vandalism". BD2412 T 03:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • BD2412 is certainly no vandal and blocking him singlehandedly without debate was erroneous. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    BD continues to seek to IGNORE and OBSCURE many aspects of what HAS already been stated by me here, and elsewhere, in the past, on several occasions, over many years. He declares "most of the public domain collections that I have incorporated into this project have been fully punctuated, and it is more of a bother to remove periods at the end of the select citations than to add them uniformly". I have in the past and presently, in the above assertions RECOGNIZED his right to add things in whatever ways he finds convenient — I am objecting ONLY to his MASSIVE disrespectful "drives" to ALTER AS MANY PAGES AS POSSIBLE conform to THOSE repeatedly REJECTED stylings which he prefers.
Even then, blocking him, even for so brief a time as an hour, is certainly was NOT an action I would normally have done, without a sense of URGENCY — however, I did provide him notice of such intentions, and he clearly once again ignored appeals to desist — and I had only discovered his activity soon after checking in here briefly, and just as I was about to leave again, and I was familiar with his patterns of past behavior of MASSIVE editing of HUNDREDS pages for MANY HOURS at a time. I thought it necessary to prevent this, and I do consider clear defiance of general consensus which HAS been expressed against IMPOSING such styling on the pages to be acts of vandalism. I do recognize that he is generally rational enough to desist from such actions and am frustrated that he has resorted to them again.
For now, I will simply provide a link to what I believe was probably the last time this had been discussed here, extensively, in September 2014 in the section "Necessity of Ethical Action." I was a bit strident in my assertions then, but his activity was FAR more extensive and aggressive at that time, than they have been in this instance. There were some dismissive observations and assertions made which I declined to fully respond to, at the time, but am increasingly willing to address some of these more bluntly, eventually, perhaps in coming weeks.
I want to make clear that "edit war" is a term which has usually been used in reference to relatively minor skirmishes involving multiple reversions of the textual content of a page. What I did in this instance was to intervene against an act of DISRESPECTFUL disregard for what HAS been repeatedly rejected, objected to by the CLEAR MAJORITY of people who have commented upon the matter several times, during such episodes, in the past. He is right that there has been no "official policy" adopted of FORBIDDING such formatting — and even I have NOT sought that — but there HAS been clear consensus AGAINST restyling pages to conform to it, by such IMPOSING practices as he has engaged in.
The VERY brief intervention of a one hour block was an attempt to halt such MASSIVE bot-style-editing of MANY pages which has amounted to an AGGRESSIVE "carpet bombing" of a styling which has clearly been rejected multiple times by others — something he has arrogantly and DISMISSIVELY INSISTED on doing for HOURS at a time in the past — to HUNDREDS of PAGES — DESPITE the CLEARLY expressed objections of OTHERS.
I believe that I actually have far more important assertions to make and work to do elsewhere — on at least a couple other websites in coming days and months, perhaps — and relatively limited time to do it. I must again be leaving now, but will probably deal with this matter a bit more in the next day or so, after I return. ~ Kalki·· 11:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I have not had so much time or disposition as to seek out examples as you have AS IF finding a few pages "proves" it is a generally "preferred" format, apart from your drives to IMPOSE it on HUNDREDS of pages at a time: but in just taking a few minutes I found one example of The Owl and the Nightingale created by a user you cite, User:Antiquary, in October 2008, which does NOT use such formatting. As to previous discussions on this matter, I believe that the link I already made to "Necessity of Ethical Action" provides access the last major time this occurred, and references previous ones — as well as resulting in a 3 to 1 statement of disapproval of such actions, despite the difficulties of getting many people involved in many of the contentions that have arisen here. I now must be leaving, and have delayed longer than I had intended, in making even this brief response. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
A quorum of four hardly provides consensus for a rule governing this entire project. BD2412 T 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I quite heartily AGREE — that is quite CERTAINLY true — and I have attempted to make clear such points on other issues, generally, in defying drives of a FEW towards forms of UNJUST absolutism, but the pretensions or deceitfulness of various forms of either rational or ethical incompetence manifest by a SINGLE PERSON, in attempting to do MASSIVE and EXTENSIVE alterations on HUNDREDS of pages PRIMARILY the work of OTHERS who preferred other stylings, provides FAR LESS basis for ANY form of government worth emulating or admiring. In calling for indications of opinions on the matter in EVERY instance, I, quite respectfully, intelligently and ethically was NOT seeking to "establish" any absolutely governing rule, binding ANYONE to adopt a style such as they MUST use — I was defying an attempt of a single person to MASSIVELY DISTORT appearances by misuse and abuse of their general status to IMPLY that such a style as they preferred was or should be the styles ALL Others defer to, without opposition or complaint. Such a stance as is what I perceive you to have persistently attempted to maintain over many years now, from my own limited perspectives. In some of the contentions I sought to make it plain that with such persistently CLEAR indications of a general disdain for such stylings, it was the proper right of every person involved in editing to alter these to the more commonly used and accepted stylings without such needless and generally undesired ending points.
Ningauble has eventually insisted‚ in EACH instance of major contentions on this matter, in rather petty and dismissive ways that it is a SMALL thing you seek to add — pointing to the "MINOR point" you INSIST upon adding — and I could agree with that, IF I could ignore the the EXTENT you do seem to prefer to add material in such ways INCONSISTENT with the more general norms. THUS I must assert that it is NOT a minor or trivial consideration to observe that you seek to IMPOSE it in a MASSIVE an voluminous way — which I assert it actually takes forms of massively neglectful dereliction of ETHICAL DUTIES to IGNORE or DENY. There are other observations I could make, but am refraining from presenting, and have done so for some time, for more important matters demand more of my involvement, and I must again soon leave on an excursion elsewhere. After I return I would prefer to simply proceed on doing much needed cleanup on at least one particular page, such as I did earlier on the page for Forgiveness. I bear no malice towards anyone, but I retain much hostility to some forms of attitudes and actions, such as unjust impositions as some are prone to make, with what I consider a contemptibly smug indifference to the proper rights and properly asserted preferences of MOST others, by the styles of their WORK, which are not merely imposition of styles AGAINST the general norms — nor the more rare willingness of most to make remarks which would get them involved in disputes against those most aggressive and zealous in seeking to IMPOSE them, or to accept such impositions. ~ Kalki·· 01:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I take exception to the characterization my comments on this matter as being petty. Rather, I think it is the two antagonists in this dispute who are being petty-minded (adj: unduly concerned with trivial matters). The subject of this thread is the block, which I do not regard as a trivial matter at all. My response to it, bulleted below, was not intended to be dismissive but to indicate clearly that I consider it a grave matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • WTF!?  This block was completely uncalled for. It is an abuse of sysop tools that constitutes conduct unbecoming an administrator.

    This is not a case of vandalism, which is an act intended to deface or damage. Nor is there any precedent or policy that justifies blocking anyone over this small point of disagreement. Note that the very discussion from 2014 to which Kalki links above contained a sub-thread proposing that BD2412 be censured, and nobody endorsed that proposal.

    This incident confirms my impression that it was a mistake for the community to restore administrator privileges to someone with such a volatile and aggressive temperament last year. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Quaker Peace Star.png

I will refrain from some of the observations I am inclined to make, and have typed, and simply assert that I was NOT being an "aggressor" in this incident — I assert that a 1 hour block is HARDLY a "severe" imposition on anyone — to imply that it was a severe abuse is something of a laugh, as I myself have suffered FAR more drastic impositions for FAR less insolence towards the general consensus than making bot-edits to alter numerous pages to an unpopular format which has been generally disapproved, EVERY time significant community contentions have been made about it. I repeat that it clearly was NOT a "punitive" but a PROTECTIVE action, which delayed me somewhat yesterday, and will likely result in much more consumption of my time in coming days — and I assert that there are many significant facts being either ignored or denied here. The FACT is I am NOT someone very inclined towards MAKING extremely binding rules or forms of IMPOSITION for ANYONE — but in reaction to the clear will of others to do what I genuinely believe to be unethical, I will respond in ways I believe to be appropriate.
I thank others sincerely for clearly exhibiting the quite evident levels generous candor, lucidity and honesty, which they are presently inclined to, as being as exemplary, no doubt, as they are presently inclined to be, in matters of ultimate vitality, and fairness.
I will amicably refrain from presently responding much further than this, for now, for I will confess that I believe that such candor as mine is obviously not something that all would presently welcome, nor be able to easily understand or appreciate. I also must, once again, be leaving, and more particularly address some issues within the next day or so. I remain charitable and forgiving towards many forms of ignorance and confusion, and those who manifest them, but remain resolutely hostile to many forms of injustice, impositions, deceits and hypocrisy. I accept that such stances and assertions of them will always tend be alarming and distressing to some of rather low rational and ethical integrity, yet, even so, I will always be inclined to bid all to be as blessed as they can be — and ever to be acceptive of the truths of what they are, within the realms of ALL Awareness, Life and Love. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

More LOQ Defiance[edit]

Alexandervonweimann (talk · contributions), whom I reported in VP for bloating up MCU articles, is at it again in another article I recently culled up for LOQ- Spectre. To be honest, this guy's screws are very much loose, claiming I stalked him and says he contributed to the article's set LOQ when he actually goes above it. It's quite intriguing that he uses edit summaries to bitch out when he never did in Captain America or other articles. As if those he created are very much compliant! Cirt and I have already tried calling him out on his behavior, but he just goes on and on - and I have no intention to hear his twisted reasoning. You just gave me added impetus to cull more fluff - when I'm done with you, you'd wish you never crossed me last August. Try me boy.--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Hey folks! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals from March 14th to April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the IEG Committee through March 25th.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone access this link?[edit]

I'm talking about this link, is anybody able to get on? I'm in the process of cleaning up William G. Boykin, and the only quotes I have left to do is this batch of quotes in "Installation Prayer Breakfast Club Dix". When I click on the link, this message pops up: The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. [404 error].

I'm planning on removing the whole section completely because the link where the contributor got his quotes from is missing. But before I do that, has anyone else been able to access this link? In order to find the quotes listed on William G. Boykin's page?

Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. The dead link appears to have been primary source material that is not widely quoted elsewhere in noteworthy sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and done so. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Update the RC board[edit]

New nomination: Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Atcovi, thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

UDScott, could you update the RC board? It seems no admins watch the village pump a lot. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, sorry forgot to update it before. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No one has commented on this request yet. As the potentially closing 'crat, I can't, but I think the community should pay due attention to an adminship request. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe and bare URLs[edit]

Even after his one-month block, CensoredScribe still continues to (I think purposefully) bring Wikiquote's standards down, by posting low-quality irrelevant "quotes" followed by a name and an equally irrelevant number (bare URL).

He had previously been warned about the use of bare URLs (months ago) but is still doing it: diff, diff.

Expecting other editors to clean up after him, especially after having already been told how to properly cite sources, is not just lazy and rude, but can be considered a form of vandalism (when done to hundreds of pages). If he continues to do this, I think he should be blocked again (but for a longer time). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I imagine you banned the person who added those errors to the Asimov page as well, and your not just picking on me for religious and political differences that would be politically divisive to actually state as your official rational. Nope, it's cause adding that bare URL to the Batman and comics pages, cause a [1] might as well be a bullet in someones arm. If this communal decision was so important than you should also use a direct quotation of the conversation to weed out me and all the the typographically unfit to edit from the wiki pool. Nice to see you too Daniel.

Also thanks for giving me heads up on my user page. Also you didn't bother to actually state so that others could investigate, even though I've only edited 4 page, I gathered there was some concern that I edit too much so I'm deliberately spacing the information I've already acquired over the last month out to make it last longer. The majority of my time now will consist of asking other editors to review the half dozenposts I make daily, which I imagine you will be starting to revert all of for no explicable reason, right after you delete those 1 or 2 bare Urls for poisoning the wiki with typographic sepsis.

You are aware that there was a time on wikiquote where unsourced statements were allowed right and that those are worse than bare url's whicha re at least verifiable? Did you Daniel Tom, personally lead the rally to ban everyone who made them the day after that decision was passed or id you not care like most people? If at the village pump there isa thread where there isa cncensus that I am not allowed to add bare urls I will play along. Because if you are picking on me in particular instead of cleaning up vandalism like I did on the Asimov page you may want to rethink your priorities and consider whether your perfectionism is perhaps detrimental to the enjoyment the majority around you.

I leave you with this quote from Voltaire, "Perfect is the enemy of the good". CensoredScribe (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs are an annoyance. If you can go to the trouble of sourcing and adding the quote, I don't see why you can't go to the trouble of providing a properly formatted citation. BD2412 T 13:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, just put a title and a date at the very least. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe sometimes puts a name and a title, but doesn't mention that it's a journalistic title, doesn't mention the author of the piece, what the publication is, date, etc., making it seem that it was the person being quoted who wrote it (as if it's a book title), like here: "Hillary Clinton Donald Trump, Abortion Foe, Eyes ‘Punishment’ for Women, Then Recants" – I'm starting to think that even bare URLs are preferable to his lazy, sloppy and misleading citations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not just lazy, sloppy and misleading, it is blatantly false: the linked article does not attribute the quoted words to Hillary Clinton at all. I have reverted it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at this page created by CensoredScribe alone – and appreciate not just the impressive collection of bare URLs, but all the tediously long, irrelevant ramblings ("quotes") he compiled there as well. I think time will prove me right, that:

  • most of CensoredScribe's additions will need to be reverted (especially his appalling "About {{PAGENAME}}" sections);
  • some new policy will be developed requiring that "quotes" whose only citation is a bare URL be moved to the article's Talk page;
  • more and more people will come to the inevitable conclusion that CensoredScibe is simply not fit to edit Wikiquote.

But perhaps I'm being too optimistic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

help with requesting protection[edit]

I've edited the eleventh doctor page in order to bring it in line with Wikiquote:Limits on quotations, but another user has reverted it a couple times, I'd like to open a dialog with them so it doesn't continue to have the two of us reverting back and forth, but thats difficult if it's not temporarily protected.

any help, or ideas on how to proceed would be appreciated. 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The limits on quotations suggested have long been proposed as guidelines, but never accepted as absolutes by most people involved here — and there have also long been contentions that even those proposed are overly restrictive, especially if they were to be taken as absolutes. As you are presently editing from an anon IP any semi-protection of the page would actually block any edits you made in such manner, rather than those of the registered user who reverted yours. This issue is one that is not likely to be definitively decided any time soon, and I am not going to protect it from anon edits at this time. ~ Kalki·· 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think he means to protect it from all edits until the dispute is resolved. I would support that. BD2412 T 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need LGBT and Lesbian Sexual Practices?[edit]

It seems kind of needlessly specific to have a page for Lesbian sexual practices differentiated from LGBT; considering you could just have made a page for Lesbian, Gay Bisexual Transgender and Questioning before diving the desire from the physical act. I am opposed to this page and believe it indicates a certain bias; I would appreciate any one else's opinions on the matter.I know I don't say by P's and Q's enough so thank you ahead of time. 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)—This unsigned comment is by CensoredScribe (talkcontribs) .

Please provide links to the article(s) you are talking about. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for saying please, if you don't mind my asking were you unable to find the article without the links by using the search box? Would you like the page revision links or does the history tab suffice? Forgive my written stutter, unlike the spoken kind is is completely unacceptable, at least I hope verbal stuttering is still socially acceptable certain times and places like the school yard it isn't... CensoredScribe (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
In reply to your question, the first thing I tried in the search box turned up a redlink. I could have searched further, but thought it simple enough to just ask. Thank you for amending your post to include links to the articles in question.

More generally, it is best practice to include links like these. Ever since the invention of hypertext, and particularly since wikimarkup makes hyperlinking so easy, this is de rigueur for clear writing. As a matter of courtesy to your readers, there should be no need to search for the subject of your post at all: it should always be just a click away. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Whether we "really need" an article about sexual acts, separate from social aspects of gender and sexuality, would probably depend on whether there are too many quotable quotes to fit in articles on broader themes relating to sexuality. In this case, the single quote in the present article seems to be lacking in quotability, and had already been removed from the LGBT article by Peter1c as "lacking notability, relevance, reasonable length". It is actually a mashup of two quotes from different chapters of the primary source, discussed separately below:
  1. The first quote (p. 318 in the primary source) is merely a clinical description of tribadism and, as such, and is not remotely "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant". The opening, "Though the fact seems little known", is something of an absurdity because, of course, this has been well known since classical antiquity. It is more a case of being widely known but not mentioned in polite company at the time and place of his writing, in accord with the etiquette of Victorian morality.
  2. The second quote (p. 303 in the primary source) is simply making the plain observation that this is normal. It is neither strikingly well said nor profoundly insightful. The phrase, "At least two ... have been brought to my attention", appears to indicate he was very little informed about the subject on which he held forth.
In defending the quote, CensoredScribe asserts that "Marston was the Kinsey of his time but overshadowed by his comic". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Kinsey Reports are ranked among the most influential scientific books of the century. Marston's ruminations on sexuality, published as popularization rather than science, had no noticeable impact. Switching to comic books was a good career move.

Notwithstanding Marston's boldness in flaunting taboos of his milieu, there is nothing enduringly noteworthy in these remarks, and there is no need for this page to enshrine them at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX[edit]

Hi, there are Yu-Gi-Oh! GX and Yu-Gi-Oh GX which deal about the same argument. Would you please merge them? :) Thanks. --Superchilum (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about pop culture quotes because I was thanked for adding Gargoyles to the war page yet Peter1c deletes every pop culture reference.[edit]

The war page contains a number of quotes from pop culture; in fact a number of pages have sections dedicated to fiction exclusively. I was wondering whether Peter1c was aware of this when making mass revisions because it seems to me they are imposing a very narrow definition of what is acceptable without actually providing what that definition is. I would appreciate someone other than Kalki, Peter1c, Daniel Tom, or Ninguable chiming in on this; though their opinions are welcome as well, it seems to be a rather insular critique group for me of late. I hope the bare urls are better, BD2412 mentioned it was a problem, I'll eventually go through the...I'm estimating 10 theme pages, with the unformatted web interviews; it's not a problem outside of the entries for the works themselves...I should probably count those but those pages need cleanup beyond just that. I would appreciate Peter's view on electronic games cleanup. I believe I've established I'm a capable judge of multiple fields and not just western history and literature; admittedly I prefer the history to the literature. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not that these quotes disputed on 14 April are from pop culture. Pop culture in not banned from Wikiquote. The issue with these quotes, as with many or most of CensoredScribe's contributions, is clearly identified in the edit summaries as lack of relevance to the topic of the page. I agree with the assertion in the heading that CensoredScribe is confused about this. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe still working diligently to bring Wikiquote's standards down[edit]

He still has no idea what quotes are. Has anyone been paying attention to his latest edits at all? Here's his most recent (IMO worse than Wikia-level) "contribution":

  • When attempting to run from a fast-moving, deadly animal,” said, “high heels are perhaps the worst choice of footwear possible. Running shoes would get my vote.

These are not notable, memorable quotations. (I won't go over the lazy and incomplete citations again. The transcription [«...animal,” said, “high...»] is equally poor.) My question is, what is it going to take for CensoredScribe to be blocked again? (Or am I the only one bothered by this?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do is for you to apply for adminship; I think you would get a lot of support (including mine, but other more active contributors would matter more). - Macspaunday (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. I do appreciate your (potential) support, though. Getting back to the subject at hand, I will just state for the record that two different editors sent me "thank you" notifications for my starting this section, which probably means I am not alone in thinking CensoredScribe's edits to date have been very problematic and annoying. He has now been blocked again, this time for a couple of months. (I don't actually like seeing people blocked, but in this case it is 100% called for and unfortunately necessary.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

rename Category:DC comics to Category:DC Comics[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but Comics needs to be in uppercase. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Thanks, I'll use AWB. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work! --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Does a quote need to be quoted to be a quote, and are my about sections Daniel Tom's reverting acceptable for those fan specific articles?[edit]

DanielTom seems to have decided at this time to go through my edits systsenatically, and this is a good thing admiteddly in that there's alot of bad pop culture quotes I added to theme articles. However my about sections try and make even the worst media appreciable for some technical hallmark or one of the actors. If you don;t believe me than try making an about section for Halle Barrys Cat Woman that's memorable isn't about her being hot and working out which is what people went to see that movie for. Daniel Tom also excludes a lot of scientists based off not being quoted else wheres. I think we all need checks and balances, in my case clean up for my many errors with loose associations, mostly from pop culture but also the occasional religious figure. Keep in mind thought Daniel and many others clearly goes through all my edits; where as I've yet to meet another who frequently reverts Daniel Tom. CensoredScribe

I have an idea, if Daniel Tom is willing, before reverting the hundreds of about sections I and others have made; if they would provide 1 or 2 examples of an acceptable about section for a work of fiction so the community can analyze it. If others ask Daniel Tom might actually listen and help us all, particularly me learn. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I spent the past 2 days attempting to clean up some of CensoredScribe's worst "contributions" (maybe 15% of them), but have in fact been very conservative in my reversions. For instance, while I believe that "quotes" whose only citations are bare URLs (that look like random numbers to readers) should be deleted or moved to the talk page, I have not acted on this principle, because it has yet to be established by the Wikiquote community. Just so people here understand what I'm referring to, here's a (by no means exhaustive, and in no particular order) collection of edits by CensoredScribe, in his typical lazy style, that I have not reverted (even though I do think most of them should be reverted):
[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] etc.
CensoredScribe admits it is a "good thing" that I went through his edits "systsenatically" (sic) because "there's alot [sic] of bad pop culture quotes I added to theme articles". Nearly all of my reversions had to do with this; almost none were of his hundreds of terrible and unmemorable "About {{PAGENAME}}" sections, which deface previously good-looking articles that many editors worked hard to build. I did notice, though, that CensoredScribe creates many such sections in just a couple of minutes. They are not well researched, for the most part. As I've already explained, he basically googles the page's name + "interview" and then copy/pastes excerpts into Wikiquote (often from blogs or other such unreliable websites), with no regard for memorability/quotability (and sometimes adds them not just incredibly quickly, but without the slightest care). That's the reason we now have many "quotes" in said sections literally starting with "And", "But", "Well", "Yet", "Actually", "You know", "They", "Yeah."  I do feel they are disrespectful towards the editors who previously worked on those pages (not to mention disgraceful and embarrassing for Wikiquote). Another thing I didn't do, is review his potentially inaccurate categorizations (what got him banned on en.wikipedia) of hundreds of articles here, but noticed in my quick scan that UDScott already reverted some of them.
I was asked to "provide 1 or 2 examples of an acceptable about section for a work of fiction so the community can analyze it". Here are a few of my own (even though I don't actually follow much contemporary fiction, and other editors could probably provide better examples):
To me, quotes by the original authors are often interesting (e.g., diff or diff):
  • First, I have to say, there is no resemblance between the movie and the book. Having said that, the movie in itself, purely as a movie, I found to be very enjoyable. I had fun watching it. What I would hope is that anyone who sees the movie would certainly enjoy it, but I'd also hope that they'd actually read the book. The book is quite different. It's a very powerful, very moving story, and I think people would find a lot more depth in the book.
I also don't mind the occasional biting criticism – e.g., about The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, diff:
More classical examples: about Paradise Lost (diff, diff, etc.):
  • The want of human interest is always felt. Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and lays down, and forgets to take up again. None ever wished it longer than it is. Its perusal is a duty rather than a pleasure. We read Milton for instruction, retire harassed and overburdened, and look elsewhere for recreation; we desert our master, and seek for companions.
    • Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets (1781), "The Life of Milton".
(See also: about An Essay on Criticism, An Essay on Man, The Iliad of Homer (Alexander Pope)...)
Or, about The Lord of the Rings (diff, diff, etc.):
  • As we read we find ourselves sharing [the characters'] burden; when we have finished, we return to our own life not relaxed but fortified.
These should be enough to give you an idea of what I would consider an "acceptable about section" (with actual "quotable" quotes). ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you DanielTom for your substantial work on cleaning up the mess this user has created. There remains much to be done, and it will take a long time, but this is a very good start. (I disagree about your example from Lloyd Alexander. The issue of film adaptations failing to capture the depth of books on which they are based is commonplace, and Alexander does not say anything particularly new or insightful about it.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(That's true, but he also mentioned that he found it enjoyable and fun – of course nothing "particularly new or insightful", but still quoteworthy as the original author's reaction to the film adaptation. Think of it this way, would Tolkien say the same thing about the Jackson films...? Still, I concede that it was not the best example.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • CensoredScribe's original question about "those fan specific articles" rests on a mistaken understanding of what Wikiquote is. Wikiquote is not a fan site. Users interested in such material might consider Wikia, which bills itself as "The Home of Fandom", a more appropriate venue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    Good point. I would also add that CensoredScribe seems to be operating under another false assumption, viz. that all pages need to have about sections. But of course, it may well be the case that there are many works about which nothing memorable has been said. Another important concern (which Peter1c, in his occasional reversions of CensoredScribe's irrelevant "quotes", has already articulated much better than I can) is that the blocks of text in CS's About sections almost always invoke/mention without any clarification the names of people or characters whom the general reader can not be expected to be familiar with, and are often packed with very detailed and completely unquoteworthy information, which again is not the purpose of Wikiquote. The "quotes" CensoredScribe says he plans to add to various articles once his block expires make me believe this pattern will continue... ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Translated quotes lacking the original text[edit]

Today I stumbled upon Herodotus, which I believe is just one example of the numerous pages here where translated quotes lack the original source text. I think the quality of EN-WQ would improve a lot if source texts were added as much as possible in such cases. On the Dutch version of Wikiquote, this is already a standard rule now, as well as the rule that all quotes must have at least one previous citation from a relevant source before they can be added to Wikiquote. Would this rule perhaps also work here if it were implemented? Maybe a subproject to improve as many pages as possible can be created here? De Wikischim (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Though adding quotes with sourcing to texts in the original languages has long been encouraged as an OPTION, especially where there are significant divergences in alternate interpretations or translations available, it has never been a requirement, nor do I believe that it ever should be — such a requirement would considerably hinder the growth of the project in adding material from the broad abundance of materials originally created in other languages, which are widely or even most available in English translations. Using such standards VERY FEW if ANY of the the ideas presented on the Herodotus page and many others, would presently be presented. The existence and growth of MOST of the pages for ancient philosophers, and scriptures of various religious traditions, would be extremely hindered, especially with the already small and habitually limited work force of volunteers here.
Wikiquote is a project that DEPENDS upon volunteers to add quotations, and most people should be encouraged to add from what materials they find most notable and accessible — and especially in the English language, most of these are NOT necessarily original language sources. Relative to such people eager to add what tangible contributions they can, I for one have long believed that are presently quite an excess of people willing to "volunteer" in creating rules for OTHERS — by which many contributions by most are far more constrained and limited, rather than encouraged. I believe encouraging people eager to promote broad awareness of diverse ideas is far more valuable to this project and to Humanity as a whole than promotion of any further constraining rules which hinder their contributions would be. ~ Kalki·· 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. OK, of course I see what you mean. However, it is not my intention at all to make this is a whole new requirement for a quote to be added to this project, or so. I was only curious to see if you'd see it here as a possible improvement and if creating a subproject or someting like that this would perhaps be an option. The fact that the above-named rule is currently a strict policy on NL-Wikiquote (which was adopted there some years ago) has nothing directly to do with it. De Wikischim (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding two separate points in De Wikischim's inquiry:
  1. Including the original language is a Good Thing™ but I don't think requiring it is a good idea because most contributors only have sources available in translation. The days when every educated person was expected to be conversant in Greek and Latin are long past, and nearly everyone relies on translations. On the other hand, many of our pages containing translated quotes do have a very serious problem that needs work: failure to cite the source of translation. As I often say, If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote. (You can quote me on that.)
  2. Requiring secondary or tertiary sources for every quotation, on the principle that if it ain't quoted it ain't a quote, has been discussed before but not adopted. (Such a rule would require deleting the majority of Wikiquote's content!) I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I have argued that for sufficiently notable works our contributors should be welcome to include passages of their own choosing that have strong qualities of quotability. On the other hand, because "quotability" is so subjectively difficult to define, and because many things are "notable" for reasons having little to do with the quality of their words, this laxity has resulted in accumulating mass quantities of banalities that have no place in any compendium of quotations.
At the intersection of these two issues lies the phenomenon of quotes that are both selected and translated by the contributors themselves. I do believe that something which has never been quoted or translated in English before should be presumed inappropriate for the English Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think it is very good when entries include quotations with the English translation as well as the original language. I don't think it should be mandatory, but some form of project to add the original languages to entries is something I support. Regarding including citations; I am not in favour of this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I always add the original text when it is available to me and I can be sure it is accurate. I rarely do it for Greek philosophers because I have no understanding of Greek (other than its alphabet), which makes transcribing any sentence in Greek take forever. An exception to this would be quotations from widely available texts already transcribed online, like those of the New Testament (or Old Testament). But I know Greek speaking people who tell me they can't read ancient Greek, so even Greek native speakers wouldn't be able to contribute to Wikiquote's articles on ancient Greek writers if adding the original texts were a requirement. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair use in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (And other country's)[edit]

But did you know, if you do it the way you do it now, it's copyvio? The said conclusion is that most of Wikiquote-EN is copyvio for the Dutch law. You have to deal with the Dutch law as well with the American law for Dutch quotes. And that's the same in most European country's, also England. Best regards, Graaf Statler (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Today I created an article for Posidonius, Cicero's teacher, with quotes only in English, without the original texts. Is it copyvio? Even if the English texts were not out of copyright, quotations from them (if only a small portion of the text, for educational/nonprofit purposes, and properly sourced) clearly fall under fair use. (In UK law, unlike what Graaf Statler claims, quotations also fall explicitly under fair use/dealing.) But the English translations I used were published in 1920 and 1925, so (as is the case of most translations of foreign authors I come across on en.wikiquote) their copyright has already expired; in this case they are even available on Wikisource. Graaf Statler is trolling with serious issues; he appears to have some sort of broader agenda against the WMF – at least I see him complaining to Mdennis (WMF), claiming that most of his home Wikipedia is also "copyvio", where he got blocked, and after a few other rants he got blocked on Meta today as well. Certainly claiming that "most of Wikiquote-EN is copyvio" is patently false, outlandish and irresponsible. And it makes people less willing to listen to his otherwise more reasonable case. Requiring further citations for Dutch (and other foreign languages) recent quotes that are not out of copyright is actually something we could adopt (even though articles where these appear are but a very tiny fraction of all Wikiquote's articles). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The small problem is that user Waheldad is explaining the system you are using is copyvio, and not me (In the link.) And in Europe we don't have fair use , and Wikiquote-EN is under and European law and American law form European matters. And I am not talking about the PD. So, a lot of words and no solution. And yes, telling something is copyvio seems to be trolling in the Wikimedia-family. Very special. But you can always block me, what happend when I told on Wikipedia_NL some users were copying and not writing articels. With the proof by the way. And copvio is copvio, tiny fracion or not. By the way, how tiny is that "tiny fraction"? Graaf Statler (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
"The article only discusses American Fair Use legislation. But a lot of Wikiquote articles deal with quotes from foreign sources. Examples: Geert Wilders draws its first quote from De Limburger (a Dutch newspaper) from September 4, 2004. As Geert Wilders is still alive he can claim copyright on his "statement". OK, there is very little creativity in this statement, but then look at the 3rd quote, which has more uniqueness. Fact is that these statements have copyright under Dutch law, and where the US law recognizes "Fair Use" for quotations, the Dutch law has "Citaatrecht". And the Dutch citaatrecht is much more restrictive than Fair Use. It requires a "purpose" for quoting, other than creating a collection of quotes. In the Dutch WQ we have adapted our approach to only list quotes that are already quoted elsewhere (and list at least one of these secondary sources) and link them to a completely description of the primary source (which in most cases is not given in the secondary sources, even if this is mandatory in citaatrecht)" By User:Whaledad.
Very tiny. For instance: we have about 60 pages for Dutch people, the overwhelming majority of which don't have any text in Dutch in them – most quotes are from English sources (interviews or books published in the US). I'd be surprised if you could find more than 10 pages with any Dutch text in them, and then you would have to show that those few quotations, in an educational site of public interest, are "copyvio", which still hasn't been established. Anyway, let's pretend the 10 pages are all copyvio (which is unreasonable): 10 / ~25000 articles * 100 = 0.04%. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC) last edit: 22:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Fine. And now what about the English, Danish, German, Greek etc articles. And how is the situation in Japan? Only America has fair use you know! And what about the PB of 95 years in America? And published in the USA does't change anything! Wikiquote under American AND Dutch law! Or under the German AND American law. And did you know if you have any critic on Wikimedia you are a Troll? Graaf Statler (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) PS No Thom, you are not nice, but ignoring arguments and facts, like everybody in the Wikimedia family! You need German Dutch etc souces. Not American! But better and more easy to call someone a troll, is't it? Or to block him, also a good solution. Graaf Statler (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The point is, you are creating havoc and running your mouth without a clue. You jump to conclusions too quickly. I didn't say anything about blocking you being a solution. But playing the victim when you've been blocked on both Dutch Wikipedia and Meta (for cross-wiki "Intimidating behaviour/harassment") doesn't work very well. You've also been blocked on NL-Wikiquote by Whaledad last week. That's not a good sign. Now, if your claim about English law is correct, that would mean a compendium of quotations like The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (published in Oxford), which quotes many times from recent English sources, is also full of copyvio! And much more clearly than Wikiquote, because, unlike us, they are for-profit. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. The WMF has actual experts and lawyers that can answer your questions/concerns. I don't want to pass myself off as an expert on these matters, so I'm not going to respond further. Try contacting them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You know Daniel, It is your Quote, not mine. So, I don't contact anybody, and I am not a victim at all, because I am sitting in the sun and Wikipedia/media/quote can walk to the hell with their crazy blocks, copyvio and wasting of money And yes, I asked user user:Romaine to inform that experts and layers something is wrong, and user:Whaledad has the answer, but he never gave it to us. (By the way, De Wikischim has also left Wikiquote-NL because of the behavior of Whaledad.) And why don't you inform if I may ask? You are not an expert, so you don't know what is right. Shall I give you the answer why you don't do that? Because you are afraid I am right!
People don't like bad news. Block him! It's a troll! Yes, it was also one of the first thinks you said! No mister Daniel Tom, I am not a troll! They made me a troll by blokking me everywere and you believe it! Why? Because I am critical! Because I told them a wikimedia party of 15.000 euro is a big wasting of money! Give the money to the children in Africa, but don't party! That is a better solution. But believe whoever you like. Best regards and good luck with your project! Graaf Statler (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Links to sister projects[edit]

Traditionally, our templates use links to our sister projects (i.e. wikipedia, etc.) in the format where they place a box on the right side of the external links section. But I have increasingly seen the use of inline templates, which instead place the links in a list on the left, similar to other kinds of external links. Personally, I favor the use of the boxes, since they set these links apart from others. But in the end, I don't really care which format we use, but we should probably try to be consistent. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Though I have occasionally used the inline format, I also tend to generally prefer the older form, for similar reasons, though I believe their size might be reduced a bit, perhaps by reducing the size of the icons somewhat. ~ Kalki·· 12:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I also prefer the more prominent box style interwiki links, but de gustibus non est disputandum. (The term "inline" is really a misnomer when they are used as standalone list items rather than in line with running text.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: In certain cases, quotes should have their own pages[edit]

Pages in Wikiquote generally consist of,

  • lists of quotes by a specified author
  • lists of quotes on a specified theme, or
  • in some cases, lists of quotes from a specified book

I'd like to suggest that, at least in certain cases, quotes should have their own dedicated pages. I'm particularly thinking of quotes that are widely misattributed.

  • When a quote is of particular interest, especially when it is commonly misattributed, we want to give a list of early citations with sources. This amount of detail doesn't fit neatly into the bullet-point dominated format currently used.
  • The page for a quote could include all common variants in a "Variants" section. Again, this amount of detail does not fit particularly gracefully into the current format.
  • When searching for a quote, Google doesn't rank Wikiquote very highly. It instead tends to prioritize sites like and -- sites have very little (if any) quality control, and tend to propagate misattributions. It seems likely that Google would give higher priority to pages that contain the quote as the page title.
  • We would still link to the page for the quote from the author and/or subject pages, including the full quote in the list.

If people think this is OK, I will create a demo of what a page like this could look like. . Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually am not inclined to believe this is a good idea — and find it very likely to open the door to a plethora of trivial pages on trivial quotes with all manner of trivial controversies about them, as well as some of the more notable phrases which might have many variants or various attributions. There could be abundance of arguments regarding what exactly should be the criteria for the creation of such pages and the levels of notability or importance of such statements or controversies about them. I prefer that most of the various attributions and variants which occur to be addressed upon the pages of the attributed authors. ~ Kalki·· 01:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think the entire structure of Wikiquote needs to be changed to a more Wikidata-like function, where individual quotes are cataloged with relevant categories of data, and then pages are created on the fly with quotes by a particular author, within a particular theme, or with other characteristics like dates or keywords, as selected by the searcher. BD2412 T 03:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You have stated such things at times, for quite a while — and I am very glad that that this has also remained a generally unpopular and unaccepted idea.
I believe that I am sufficiently well acquainted with the propensity of some to "automate" things to the advantage of those who favor some of the most mechanistic forms of classifications and activities, as more "efficient" than those willing to exercise broader ranges of their own imaginations and permit others to exercise and indicate theirs to the extent that doing so does not violate the principles of Justice, Unity, Liberty and intelligent association based upon these principles, as can be generally agreed to by most people.
I will simply state that I favor the wiki-model of actual human involvement in quotation presentation which permits broader ranges of innovation and diversity of presentations, within general guidelines and standards, rather than rigorously constrained or channeled database models which serve to automate the presentation of ideas and thoughts according to the preferences or mental vacuities of those most inclined to IMPOSE their own upon others. I have always recognized the actual need for some forms of agreements and guidelines in many ranges of human endeavors — but generally prefer to keep these as loose as possible, permitting nuance and innovation, rather than create or support extremely constraining formulations which permit and impel very rigorous and often quite stupid and difficult or impossible to ignore "standardizations".
What you seem inclined to propose might perhaps work better as a very extensive and substantial sub-project of options at "Wikidata" for those perhaps interested in developing them, rather than one which would pretty much ignore and discard much of the work that has been done by thousands of editors in over a decade of gradual work here, and reshape the whole project to what I consider would be a rather lame mechanistic "efficiency" of simplistic "standardization" with extreme disregard of the unformulated essences of many aspects and patterns of Truth, Reality, Wit, Wisdom and Beauty — and the diverse interconnections which exist among these in complex ways, which at least a few people are sometimes inclined to explore and appreciate in ways easily stifled or even dissipated and eliminated by many formally adopted formalistic formulations, which favor the cancerous growth of idolatrous ideologies of idiocy rather than the growth of splendrous imaginative ideas of idealistic intelligence. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 11:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
At the same time, however, limiting the contents of pages to what is added by "human" involvement means that numerous good quotes for inclusion with a theme or by an author will be overlooked, because humans don't necessarily have the patience to find all the quotes relevant to a theme. At least our search function allows us to find keywords, but having used it to aid in the assembly of many pages, I have noted that it also returns many false positives. For example, when I started making the Attorney General page, most of the returns were for people who had that phrase in their description, not in a quote. BD2412 T 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Kalki! I'll try to address the points you raise:
[it could] open the door to a plethora of trivial pages on trivial quotes with all manner of trivial controversies about them
I think this is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it's not clear why it's a big problem. There are benefits to having separate pages for even "trivial" quotes:
  • You can link directly to the quote, rather than having to link to a page containing a (possibly huge) list of other quotes by the same author / on the same theme.
  • If the quote belongs in more than one list (e.g. its author and its theme) then all information about the quote (e.g. list of citations, disputes over attribution) can be centralized in one place.
  • The current quote pages arranged by author / theme / book would still link to the quote's dedicated page, so we would not lose the ability to see lists arranged by author or theme.
There could be abundance of arguments regarding what exactly should be the criteria for the creation of such pages and the levels of notability or importance of such statements or controversies about them.
We already have criteria for inclusion of quotes, so I don't see why this should cause any increase in such controversies.
I've created a sample page here for a specific quote, with examples of how it would be linked from the list pages here and here. Cheers! Grover cleveland (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If I understand rightly, the pages Grover cleveland is suggesting would be a lot like those at the Quote Investigator (an excellent site, by the way), but with less exposition. With reference to the four bullet points in Grover's opening post:
  • A short list of early citations, sufficient to clarify origins or at least rebut misattributions, does fit well enough under quotes in "misattributed" sections. Many articles have this sort of information. For Wikiquote's purposes, I don't think expanding this to whole pagefuls of detail is better than simply providing a citation to more extensive analysis elsewhere, e.g., at The Quote Verifier by Ralph Keyes or Quote Investigator by Garson O’Toole.
  • Trying to list "all common variants" could be too much information. Devoting whole pages to individual quotes could be an irresistible magnet for the sort of trivial or banal rephrasings and mentions from "popular culture" and unpopular blogs that have occasionally been pruned from existing articles. There is much to be said for a format that encourages brevity.
  • Search engine optimization (SEO) is a debatable objective, and a constantly moving target. If Google ranks BrainlessQuote first for Grover's example[141] I think it is their failing, not ours. Personally, I take a dim view of SEO as something primarily used for delivering people to view content one is pushing, rather than delivering content that people are seeking.
  • Linking individual quotes from other articles, as further discussed in Grover's second post above, is a significant point but opens a large can of worms. The way we handle quotes repeated on multiple pages, whether because they are attributed to multiple authors or just because they are relevant to multiple topics, is inherently redundant and leads to inconsistencies. This might be resolved with a database driven system, as recommended by BD2412 below, but I suspect there are insurmountable design and implementation challenges to make reading, editing, and curating by the general public feasible.
That said, we do already have Category:Phrases, ostensibly for articles about individual phrases or quotations, but I think it was not well conceived and is not well populated. (I myself created a page that might be categorized thus, though it is not.) Pages in that category are not at all like what Grover cleveland is proposing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ningauble: We also have Category:Memes, which I have also just added to Category:Phrases. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Ningauble. I guess the fundamental question is: what is the aim of Wikiquote? According to to Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines (bold added):
Our goal with Wikiquote is to create a free compendium of quotations--indeed, the largest compendium of quotations in history, in both breadth and depth. We also want Wikiquote to become a reliable resource.
If we want Wikiquote to be large in both breadth and depth, then analysis of quotes and "whole pagefuls of detail" seems appropriate, in the relatively few cases where a single quote does warrant such analysis. Merely pointing people to analysis elsewhere seems unsatisfactory to me -- those other sites may go offline or require registration, books may be inaccessible, and in any case they will not be free for reuse because of copyright restrictions. And it seems to negate one of the most exciting features of Wikis -- that, by aggregating material from multiple reliable sources, they can become more comprehensive than any other single source. That, after all, is how Wikipedia has become such a success.
Devoting whole pages to individual quotes could be an irresistible magnet for the sort of trivial or banal rephrasings and mentions from "popular culture" and unpopular blogs that have occasionally been pruned from existing articles.
I don't see this as a huge objection. If material does not meet Wikiquote standards, it can be removed in the future, just as it is now.
There is much to be said for a format that encourages brevity.
Yes, and we would still have one. The lists of quotes arranged by author / topic would still be there, and these could be even more brief than they are today, because we would have the option of adding additional detail to individual quote pages, rather than cramming it into nested elements of the the lists.
Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ningauble:, @Kalki:, any other editors-- any repsonses? I feel that this is something that would take the Wikiquote project in the right direction. Please let me know of any further comments you have in response to the latest arguments I've presented above. Thanks! Grover cleveland (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A new "Welcome" dialog[edit]

Hello everyone. This is a heads-up about a change which has just been announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor.

In a nutshell, later this week this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)

  • I want to make sure that, although users will see this dialog only once, they can read it in their language as much as possible. Please read the instructions if you can help with that.
  • I also want to underline that the dialog does not change in any way current site-wide and personal configurations of the visual editor. Nothing changes permanently for users who chose to hide the visual editor in their Preferences or for those who don't use it anyway, or for wikis where it's still a Beta Feature, or for wikis where certain groups of users don't get the visual editor tab, etc.
    • There is a slight chance that you see a few more questions than usual about the visual editor. Please refer people to the documentation or to the feedback page, and feel free to ping me if you have questions too!
  • Finally, I want to acknowledge that, while not everyone will see that dialog, many of you will; if you're reading this you are likely not the intended recipients of that one-time dialog, so you may be confused or annoyed by it—and if this is the case, I'm truly sorry about that. This message also avoids that you have to explain the same thing over and over again—just point to this section. Please feel free to cross-post this message at other venues on this wiki if you think it will help avoid that users feel caught by surprise by this change.

If you want to learn more, please see; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task (or at if you prefer).

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quotability of many of the pages in Category:Chemistry[edit]

I am not sure that many of the pages within this category (and many of its subcategories) contain quotes that are in any way memorable or pithy. I do not see the value in keeping pages with quotes taken from textbooks - we are supposed to be a compendium of memorable or notable quotes, and I believe that many of these pages do not contain anything remotely resembling that. I would recommend deletion of most of these pages, with the exception perhaps of the following: Atomic theory, Analytical chemistry, Alchemy, Cooking, Fossil fuel, Origin of life, Singularity, and Synthesis. And I further believe this problem exists for other science-related categories as well. Any thoughts from anyone? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with them, for the most part. They are a bit dry, but extend coverage to areas that other quotation compilations tend to ignore, and can be expanded in the future. One of my long-term goals here is to contact Carl C. Gaither of Killeen, Texas (author of Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations and many other comparable compilations) to seek public domain release of older compilations. BD2412 T 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but my point is that we are supposed to be a collection of memorable or notable quotes. And we specifically say it does not include excerpts from textbooks (see Wikiquote:What_Wikiquote_is_not#Wikiquote_is_not_a_textbook). Of course there may be exceptions (like Einstein's Theory of Relativity or other notable examples such as this). ~ UDScott (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
      • If people want to make pages on obscure topics with boring but verifiably sourced textbook quotes, I see no reason to spend any time at all addressing them. They don't really hurt anything (since they will only be seen by people who actually look for quotes on those topics), and they just might draw the interest of people who will add more notable and quotable quotes. These do not raise copyright concerns, and do not appear to be part of a promotional effort. Their bookishness should be a fairly low priority on our radar. BD2412 T 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I would not say bookishness is the issue here – the whole business of quoting classical literature is widely considered a bookish pursuit – but rather the issue lies in the general nature of textbooks, as elaborated in further remarks under my earlier post below.

          I must say I am surprised to find the principal developer of the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline seeming here to deprecate its importance. Please reconsider: if quotability is not to be a top priority for our "compendium of notable quotations" then I am not sure what else its raison d'être would be. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

          • Well, I'm not about to start creating pages like these, and would not advise other editors to make this the focus of their work, but I'm in no hurry to delete the ones that have been made. BD2412 T 19:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to agree with UDScott. Though the problem is not limited to chemistry and science topics, these fields do seem to have attracted a great deal of unremarkable textbook material. Not everything worth highlighting when studying a textbook (e.g. [142], [143], [144], [145]) is worthy of inclusion in a compendium of notable quotations. Of course, something which is a flat statement of fact can be quoteworthy when it is an original, seminal observation that has achieved significant fame and influence. Such is not the case with the pages criticized here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Further remarks about textbooks:  It is generally characteristic of textbooks to present what is already generally accepted knowledge in a field rather than presenting new and original thought: new ideas are generally hashed out in peer reviewed journals or widely accepted monographs before being recapitulated in textbooks. However well a textbook may organize and explain the subject, in essence it is a collection of information from prior sources. There are exceptions, where a new idea or argument, an original synthesis of a fresh perspective, or a strikingly well said clarification appears for the first time in a textbook, but these are very rare exceptions.

    I myself have added some quotations from textbooks that represent these sorts of exceptions, e.g. George Pólya's How to Solve It and Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. These texts did not simply present what was generally accepted knowledge and practice in their fields, they strongly criticized the state of the art and made powerful arguments for reforming how it was taught and practiced. The selected quotes focus specifically on these polemical aspects, rather than purely informative material that might better be cited in an encyclopedia than a compendium of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate Simple English Wikiquote[edit]

So I use Google to look up the "one man, two men, three or more men" quote and the first link is to Wikiquote. Oh dear, that page looks rather strange. But there's the quote, and others, but what's this Simple: thing? And why is the second quote on the page so hideously wrongly misinterpreted into "simple English"?

And why are the last edits to that John Adams page in 2009 defending the bad interpretation? And the last edits to their Main Page from 2009, and by the same defending editor? Who is now retired?

The Simple English Wikiquote site looks quite dead, and yet Google and at least the John Adams page here links to that Simple English page and site which is full of cobwebs. Did I mention that wiki isn't linked into the global Wiki logins and I can't login there to fix it?

I found this note over at Wikidata where they "removed the interwiki link" 'simplewikiquote' from there, but that doesn't help here, does it?

Simple Wikiquote is dead. How does it get removed from the "In other languages" sidebar from all pages here?

(Aside: Of course that doesn't then help the fact that the John Adams page at is not even in the first 10 pages of results at Google for that search above. Perhaps they thought and were "the same thing"? Might that be enough motivation?)

Shenme (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I would tend to agree. Wikiquote is not the sort of project that is well suited for a "Simple" version. The quotes say what they say, simple or not. BD2412 T 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is an embarrassment to the Wikiquote name and to the Wikimedia foundation that this defunct "wikiparaphrase" website still has not been taken down. Years ago, I tried to persuade Language committee members to do so, but there was no clear policy on what to do with the content of closed projects and nobody would act on it. Since then a Closing projects policy has been formalized, and it appears that the only recourse is to hold another discussion at Proposals for closing projects expressly on the question of whether to delete the content. Such discussions can drag on for years, and are not binding. (It is a purely advisory procedure, not a community decision. The decision is entirely up to the Language committee, subject to review by the Foundation board.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any Latin Scholars Here?[edit]

Are there any people here who have studied Latin extensively? (By "extensively", I mean to suggest a skill level that would include the ability to translate Latin texts, as well as some knowledge of specific Roman writers.) I have a quote that is often attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero, but may actually be from Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus). I would like to discuss this quote and related info with someone more knowledgeable than myself. Please reply on my Talk page. Thanks, CononOfSamos (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

  • DanielTom might be able to help out with that, if you ask nicely. They seem to have in interest in Latin works, although they don't list Latin or even English as a language they speak on their user page. "Can we say that Dryden's translation of Virgil is a misattribution?", from the Virgil page edit history seems to suggest a knowledge of the finesses of Latin translation. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft space[edit]

I need a draft space on this project to work on drafts. I have too many userspace drafts, and it seems a bit weird to have drafts in Wikiquote space. BD2412 T 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I can see that this project has old JavaScript that needs to be updated. I would happily make the required updates myself, but I would have to – at least temporarily – become an admin here to do that (because the relevant pages are in the MediaWiki namespace). I have already made these updates on a number of other projects, so it would be very easy for me to do this. If no one does anything, some JavaScript-related tools will break later this year. If you want me to make these updates, you can grant me admin rights and I will make the updates as soon as I can. Nirmos (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I think these couples should be merged:

-- 08:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: thank you. And what about the other two cases? -- 10:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into them, probably after I get back from Wikimania, in about two weeks. BD2412 T 12:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I also add Manusmṛti and Manu Smriti. -- 12:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this quote better for rape or consent, and is it formatted well enough?[edit]