Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Author rights issue

Good evening, I'm active on Czech Wikipedia but I'm a newcommer on Wikiquote. And as our Wikiquote is not so active, I'll better ask here. I read and searched through FAQs in both Czech and English Wikiquotes but haven't found any reply to my question. Would anyone tell me, please, if I copy quotes of famous persons from other webpages (although mentioning a source), isn't it a copyright violation? Living famous people usually provide quotes for some medias and I'm affraid that it may be copyright infringement but as it's quote, it cannot be written by my own words to not violate author rights like when contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for any reply. --Wespecz 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pointers toward answering your questions:   Copying all of, or a substantial portion of, somebody else's collection of quotes would violate presentation copyright, although these can be good starting points for research. Quoting from copyrighted publications within the limits of fair use is fine, and there is some guidance at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations for what may be considered fair. Quotes should be cited to reliable sources, not just anybody's web page, and it is best to track down and cite the original published source whenever possible. Verifiable, reliable sources are especially important for living people, as is limiting oneself to quotes that are actually famous or quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I'm a completely new user of Wikiquote though I have a fair amount of experience with WB and WP. I'd like to learn the ropes here so I'll appreciate if anyone could tell me:

  • How you classify quotes. I know quotes can be classified by theme and people here, as I have previously used Wikiquote before. But are there ways other than that to classify quotes?
  • What is your inclusion criteria? I'm sure that you won't accept a random quote from a random person off the street, but how would you deem a quote significant for WQ?

That's all the questions I have now. Thanks. Kayau 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, no, I have one more. Is there any chance that Wikiquote could collaborate with WP's Motto of the day project? Just a thought...

Greetings! The three main categories of Wikiquote articles are People, Productions (i.e., Works), and Themes. Fundamental categories also include Proverbs and Lists. Some inclusion criteria are described at Wikiquote:Quotability and in an essay at Wikiquote:Notability. See also what Wikiquote is and is not. Wikiquote is a small community that does not have "Wikiprojects" like MOTD, but there is a Quote of the Day on the Main Page. ~ Ningauble 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast reply. I'll read the guidelines and essays through when I have time. What I have in mind is, a Wikiquotian (or whatever you're called anyway: pedia-pedian, books-bookian, news-newsie) who has some knowledge of Wikipedia, especially quotian-pedians (like Cirt), could help out at the MOTD by suggesting quotes for us to use, then either the quotian or a MOTD pedian can link and nominate it. What do you think of that? Kayau 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw in my two cents, I'm part of the MotD process on WP, and I don't think that we should do this. No offense to all of you, but we seem to be doing quite well on our own, and I'm sure that you all have enough to do here. Hi878 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi878, that was slightly rude. I've just completely changed the scope of the proposal here. If anyone cares to weigh in (or object, since this means we may be getting our sticky little fingers all over your project), it will be appreciated. Sonia 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely sorry if that sounded rude; I didn't mean it to be at all. If I offended anybody, I am very sorry. Hi878 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel offended, and thanks for offering your apologies. I didn't know WP's MOTD, and giving a glance its scope is different from our WQ:QOTD. MOTD people are welcome to reuse past QOTD, but I am not sure Wikiquotians are interested in helping in MOTD, not offense, but because 1) currently we don't have any project to offer quotes for specific purpose, while it could be useful, and 2) as Hi878 suggests there are things enough to do here. --Aphaia 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid IP edit

I've undid an edit by an IP who added an external link to a non-English site, and seems to be spam. Please revert my edit if I am wrong. Thanks, Kayau 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did right. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhorukov quotes

Subsequent to Votes for deletion/Leonid S. Sukhorukov, some single purpose IP contributor(s), operating over a period of many months, added Sukhorukov quotes to no less than 80 theme pages. See VFD talk. Unless someone presents good reason not to, I will begin removing all of them shortly. ~ Ningauble 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. They should all be deleted. ~ UDScott 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Gone. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I attended Wikimania (and that was mainly why I was on a wikibreak), and it was great. One of best things in venue for me was that I met there was meetings of other Wikiquotians - and it was my first Wikimania I met Wikiquotians who had known only by names! I met User:Nemo bis, Italian Wikiquote sysop and Casey Brown (Cbrown1023). Bad news are there was no presentation on Wikiquote and our project was missed to mention on the program cover ;( There could be other criticism, but generally it was a great conference. Just it would be greater, if Wikiquote had been much more focused on. --Aphaia 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I have an issue regarding an IP. After a deletion discussion involving the Rob Schneider article, an IP has recreated it and as a result, I immediately tagged it for speedy deletion, but the IP has swiftly reverted my edits. Is there any possible way to help solve this problem? Thanks. Sjones23 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I salted the article for one week. Hope to pace it down ... --Aphaia 09:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usability Initiative rollout

Rollout at Wikiquote of the new skin and editing tools (as seen at Wikipedia) appears to have been postponed from "end of July" (i.e. now) until "mid August."[1] Prepare to be surprised.  ; ) ~ Ningauble 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Phase V Deployment is now scheduled for August 25.

I just checked out the "Try beta" option to see if the configuration is working locally, with mixed results:   The basic skin, including new tab-strip and search-box, seems to be working as at Wikipedia (which is not to say that it is working correctly, just that it rolls out warts and all), but the new editing toolbar is not showing up for me in IE7. ~ Ningauble 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I had to manually enable "Show edit toolbar" at My preferences. I am happy to report that I can now see all of the warts. ~ Ningauble 16:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The Phase V Deployment has been rescheduled for September 1. Nobody should be surprised. ~ Ningauble 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to contact original author of a wiki page?

My apologies for what's probably a most elementary question, but I cannot find the answer to it. How and under what circumstances can/must an editor contact authors of articles?

I've for a while been editing Wiki grammar as I come across obvious minor errors; that's been working fine. Tonight I found a page (Langdon_Smith#Evolution) with what seem to be more serious mis-writing, so I've added a comment to that page's discussion. The writing in question comes from 2007, and the last time that the page was discussed or edited was in May 2007 and Sept 2009, respectively. My comment is a suggestion, yet because the page is so lightly traveled, I'm guessing that no one will see or react to it. I'm not being vain, I just want as a matter of courtesy to alert the author (Kalki) to my comment. The problem is that though I can reach Kalki's page, I can't seem to find out how to send him or her a note. I'd appreciate help with this, and more important, on the custom in regard to contacting article authors. - Mahnut 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still regularly review pages here, usually at least daily, if not more often, though my interest and involvement in monitoring things here have diminished considerably since some controversial assertions, contentions and decisions of last November, but I responded to some of your comments on the Talk:Langdon Smith‎‎ page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, I've continued the discussion.

As to my general question above, I guess that when one wants to resurrect discussion or substantive editing of an orphan-ish article, the best way to reach authors - if they're still contributing - is to post a request here. Is this correct? Mahnut 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually leaving a note on their "talk" page (or "discussion page") as they now tend to be labelled, would usually be better for getting into direct contact, as these provide an orange flag notification whenever the user checks in. I am just briefly checking in now, and noticed your comments merely incidentally, as they didn't show up on my view of "Recent changes" as many edits had been made to the wiki which placed if far below the list of recent edits I normally check. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected this deletion discussion in response to the sockpuppet onslaught. If any admin disagrees with this action, please feel free to unprotect. BD2412 T 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but it might have been better to post a {{VfdAnons}} notice before resorting to protection. No harm done. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've run a new search for unlisted names, and posted the results at Wikiquote:Unlisted names. There are fewer than 700, less than a tenth of what we had the first time, so this should go much faster. Any help plugging these into the lists of people by name would be most appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikiquote importer"

I have to request this.

Replacing w:User:DottyQuoteBot, this bot will update w:Template:QOTD.

Thoughts, flames? (And I may plan to do copyright cleanup) I-20 01:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Dottydotdot's defunct bot is a fine idea, thanks for taking it on. I have some reservations about using "Wikiquote importer" as the account name for your requested bot because it might give the misleading impression of operating in an official capacity. "Importer" is the name of a user right, like "Administrator." Perhaps something along the lines of "Quote of the day bot" (but shorter) would be better. ~ Ningauble 12:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External link added to George Lincoln Rockwell

An IP added a link at George Lincoln Rockwell to a collection of the subjects writings and speeches on a white supremacist website, My initial inclination was to delete the link based on the general content of the website, but it does seem to be a fairly thorough collection of materials directly relating to the subject of the page, and it's not as though there is anything else on that website that is more offensive than what the subject himself has to say. Should the link stay or go? BD2412 T 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally frown on linking to most sorts of advocacy sites, as Wikiquote is not a networking platform for such organizations. An argument might be made for linking this information in the Wikipedia article if it is considered sufficiently reliable, but there are currently no links to the site in any Wikipedia articles. (Disclosure: My views on external links in general is probably more restrictive than the broader community's consensus.) ~ Ningauble 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still undecided on this link in particular. It does lead to a trove of actual quotes by the subject. Perhaps we should just add a caution/disclaimer? BD2412 T 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be elegant to import this gadget, especially for those who have never installed any additional fonts. It just translates the interwiki links into English, you can test it by ticking it here. JackPotte 09:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New gadget: the subtitles in the videos

Bugzilla are inviting us to put this gadget allowing to see the subtitles with the videos (already installed at least on en.w, fr.w, fr.b, fr.v & Commons) directly in Mediawiki:Common.js. Actually, they need some feedback. JackPotte 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Am I the first person to be the sole contributor to a 70,000+ byte article? Jc iindyysgvxc 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I hate to break it to you - the page is way too long and requires extensive trimming (see the note on the Talk page and refer to WQ:LOQ). ~ UDScott 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countervandalism channel IRC

Hello dear Wikiquote-users,

It's been a while since the last check, but I noticed the #cvn-wq-en channel on is abandoned. The recentchanges-bot from the CVN (named MartinBot) has been offline for about a year, but no request has been found so far for a replacement.

Please note that at any time the CVN could just start a feed in there, no problem at all.

Although I would like to point out though that (concluding from the inactivity) perhaps the channel is not wanted anymore. Therefor this message.

Note that there is also Special:RecentChanges and #en.wikiversiy on which monitors any and all activity, but for a project as big Wikiquote it may be impossible to monitor activity in such a busy stream.

The advantage of a CVN-channel over the regular feed from is that it filters down to suspicious edits (all anonymous edits and otherwise notable edits for vandal fighters (large removals, blanking, certain trigger-words) and filters these based on a globally shared database of blacklisted and whitelisted usernames and other patterns (these are shared amongst all cvn-channels).

Either way, setting up the channel is no hassle at all. So state below what you think about it and whether or not you would like such a channel again. Krinkle 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why is a widely used information site like About dot com on the spam protection filter blacklist? In recent months I have often had to erase any mention of it from pages to simply revert vandalism. I doubt seriously that we have ever been massively inundated with actual spamming from this site, and we and most Wikimedia projects commonly link to other well used commercial information sites like IMDb. Unless there is an actual Wikimedia policy against About of which I am unaware I believe it should be removed from our spam protection filter. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cirt blacklisted it[2] because somebody was using it to cite poor quality and/or unreliable content. Like yootoob, it is generally not a good quality source citation but can be a useful supplementary link for a citation that identifies the original source or a reliable print source. So I think that, like yootoob, it probably does not need to be blacklisted even though it can definitely be misused. ~ Ningauble 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solution against the broken external links: back up the Internet

For two years, allows the French Wikipedia to read the external sites, which URL are in its article, even if they're stopped, thanks to a link [Archive] after each URL. Today they're proposing to extend their backups to us, and it's working on the French Wiktionary. Could we please get a consensus to install it here? JackPotte 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example: do you see the reference at the bottom of wikt:fr:welcome? I've just added it and the archive link is already available. JackPotte 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds cool, I support it. Folks, thought? --Aphaia 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a few external link-related issues come up in the past few weeks. I think it is high time we set forth a policy governing exactly when and where external links will be permitted, and when and where they will be prohibited. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome greater clarity, as I have often been uncertain where the consensus of established editors draws the line, but this is a very difficult area to legislate because opinions vary and some of the lines are really broad grey areas. I think most of Wikipedia's WP:EL makes good sense, but Wikiquote's scope is not the same and precedent here seems to differ in several respects. Do you have some particular ideas in mind? ~ Ningauble 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer something far more restrictive than Wikipedia's policy. I would specifically like a limitation to a small number of external links to reliable sources that provide general information about the subject or the subject's speeches and written works, and an express prohibition on links to fly-by-night quote collections like BrainyQuote. BD2412 T 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be more restrictive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll draft something up in the next few days. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A short draft has been initiated. BD2412 T 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few comments to the Wikiquote talk:External links page. Much of the draft seems acceptable to me, but the attempt to narrowly constrain and contract some of the options available here is something I find extremely objectionable. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book-of-quotations alone a reliable source?

Hi. At Margaret Mead, the "Never doubt ..." quotation is currently sourced to a book of quotations, and not to any conclusive evidence that Mead herself ever said or wrote it. Should that quote be moved into an "Unsourced" or "Attributed" section? (Apologies if this is in an faq somewhere. I looked around the help menus, but could not find anything.)

Note: This page contains useful details about the uncertainty of the quote in question, and should probably be linked to, or incorporated here, somehow?

Thanks :) Quiddity 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book of quotations, or any secondary source is never to be presumed an absolutely reliable one — but strictly speaking, from a genuinely skeptical stance, very few things should be treated as absolutely reliable. Any clearly relevant and peculiar information as to the reliability or unreliability of the attributions is welcome in the citation and comment sections beneath a quote. One reason I generally oppose creating separated "Attributed" sections in articles is that they break up the flow of chronological presentations based on dated sources, which can often serve as some indicator of reliability in itself, though certainly not an absolute one, and because were such a standard genuinely and rigorously applied to all relevant material, ALL translations would need to be considered "attributions" and thus nearly all of the material that dates back more than a few centuries. This is why I generally specify "as translated by", and "as quoted in" when I am not dealing with the original sources, and especially when quoting from quotation books. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem that has developed in recent months is that Google Books listings now include not only sources that are scans of hard copy books, but such ersatz conglomerations as "Your very own Book of Qutations" apparently created by some kind of software gathering systems, generally containing attributions which are not sourced at all, and a very casual observer might think of as deliberately researched and published material. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One has to consider the reliability of the source, not just its genre. Even before the recent phenomenon of worthless books aggregated by web trawlers, books of quotations have long been a mixed bag. Some are venerable works produced with care and diligence, some are careless and amateurish productions of little note, some are in-between, being notable but not necessarily reliable (which is, I think, the case in this instance), and some, especially among humorous or edgy ones, are contemptibly dishonest.

Even when a separate "Attributed" section is not used, I prefer to say "attributed by..." for the in-betweens, reserving "quoted by..." for firsthand reports and reports that cite their sources because "if it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."(You can quote me on that.) When I have been unable to verify secondary citations, I sometimes use language like "quoted by XXX; citing YYY," or "quoted by YYY; as cited in XXX." ~ Ningauble 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I write "A quick guide to submissions"?

I'm a newbie here and have all these great questions that a newbie would have. I would like to write "A quick guide to submissions" while all this is still fresh in my mind as a newbie. This would be something a person could read in 30 seconds to decide if a submission is appropriate or not. I would like to start a quick outline here at the Village pump (in this thread) and then move it to its own page. Is this alright with everybody? Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch this request. I've read far too much and don't recall what my initial ideas/questions were. - Hydroxonium 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold :) I'd however recommend you to use your user page instead. Make a subpage and then move it to the Wikiquote:whatever when you think it fixed. It's better to manage the page than to copy & paste from Village pump. --Aphaia 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four months to consider an unblock?

A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall redouble my effort to obtain an answer on this, so I ask again... A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- Thekohser (using 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I shall retriple my effort to obtain an answer on this, so I ask again and again... A Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a response to the initial request, and a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good.
In other words, a Wikiquote contributor, Thekohser is asking for his account to be reviewed for unblock. It has been over 4 months, without a single response to the initial request, and there was a follow-up request a couple of weeks ago. Is the user being deliberately ignored? Note, the user is actively contributing content recently to Wikisource, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and Wikinews, all without any major crisis. In fact, some of his contributions are quite serious and good. -- Thekohser (using 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The guy deserves an answer. One possible answer would be a note from an admin that they are investigating the situation, giving a time within which a response will be made. It would be the total silence, on a matter which should ordinarily be handled as a priority, that would be so frustrating.
(I also understand the early delay. Who is going to unblock when Jimbo has just blocked? At that time, there was a bit of an indication that this would be an invitation to immediate desysop by Jimbo -- though with the only example, Jimbo quickly restored the tools. That situation no longer exists, it has very clearly changed. Jimbo, from an RfC at meta, gave up the right to do that, over a set of actions that included his blocking of Thekohser.)
I've provided an outline of the overall situation with this user, on the Talk page, and can provide evidence for every assertion if needed. I led the unblock effort at Wikiversity (and note that any effective unblock requires a 'crat to make it work, what with the global lock), and assisted it at Wikibooks. Both wikis decided to unblock after extensive discussion and an ultimate 75% consensus to unblock. I actually became an active Wikibooks user as a result of trying to help out.... —This unsigned comment is by Abd (talkcontribs) .
I am a relatively active wikibookian whose attention was drawn to this thread by Thekohser's Wikipedia Review post. Since wikibooks is being pointed to a few times above, I will comment but bear in mind I haven't yet contributed to this project, so anything I say should be taken somewhat lightly. I agree that there has been no major crises at wikibooks since Thekohser's unblock and he has produced a very nice page. At the same, as recently noted by several editors, some of his following edits were a bit "confrontational" (see b:User talk:Thekohser#Issues with Jimbo) both by people that opposed his unblock (such as myself) and those who supported his unblock. Locally, I also find the edit linked to from the WR article (aka this edit) a bit concerning. That edit together with this edit summary sound a bit threatening.
On other hand, his background in history is seems quite extensive and there is potentially positive contributions he could make because of that. Also, if I were in his shoes I might also be frustrated.
During his unblock proceedings at wikibooks it was frequently stated that his behavior at other wiki's should not be considered. If the community decides that this is the feeling here as well, I would point out that this principle shouldn't be applied only to disruptive actions. It should either apply to all edits or none at all. This being said, two things to keep in mind reading this post and the one above. First, I was one of the primary voices for continuing his block at wikibooks, and Abd was one of the primary voices for unblocking him. Hopefully between the two of us there is some balance. Secondly I haven't really contributed here before. The comments and links to wikibooks just encouraged me to put my two cents in. Thenub314 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at Wikipedia User:Abd is indefinitely banned from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. Although Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction here, their findings might lead one to disregard Abd interjecting in this case. Note also that the history of edits by Abd and Thekohser at Wikiquote have been primarily concerned with contributors and persons associated with Wikimedia, suggesting that both persons are not here to build an encyclopedia of quotations, but to pursue some other agendas. ~ Ningauble 13:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble is correct about my participation at Wikiquote, as to the present. I commented here because I became aware of the situation here, and I'm offering only some "sister-project" information. I've been asked on my Talk page about the ArbComm ban, and I will answer there, it is completely irrelevant to this issue. The message I have for you is basically that this is your own decision, it is not my decision, it is not meta's decision, it is not even, any longer, Jimbo's decision. You are in charge here, and only if you conduct yourselves in such a way as to damage the other wikis will you see any interference from meta or the Foundation. I thank Thenub314 for his comment. I originally commented at Wikibooks based on "cross-wiki issues," i.e., concern for the overall welfare of the WMF family of wikis, and in support of local autonomy, but, having stopped by, I became a regular Wikibooks user, starting to accumulate significant contributions.
My support for local autonomy does not depend on whether or not Thekohser is ultimately of use to a particular project or not, it was about the right of each community to make its own decisions. There is a general principle, in operation across all the wikis, that a user is not blocked based on their behavior elsewhere, absent some special conditions, and this principle has been very useful in re-integrating users who for whatever reason run into trouble at one of the wikis. If they can become positive contributors at another wiki, it's good for that wiki and it sometimes even becomes a path of return to where they originally had a problem, and sometimes these users even become, upon return, highly productive members of that original community, and even sysops. I will agree that Thekohser has made a few possibly inappropriate remarks on Wikibooks, unnecessarily confrontive, not of local users, but on overall WMF issues. However, a wiki is not going to fall apart because of some occasional remarks; if they become a problem, it only takes a moment to warn, and only a moment to push a block button. (I will note that there are other users who think that the issue Thekohser raised on Wikibooks is an important one. I don't agree, and I've argued strongly against that -- on Wikipedia Review --, but, I'm pointing out, it takes all kinds. When we start excluding people because they hold opinions we don't like and they occasionally express them, we are sliding down a very slippery slope.
As to Thekohser's contribution record here, I would not find it inspiring. However, looking at his Talk page, I see only one "warning."[3]. The user complaining was blocked, about four months later.... If a 'crat delinks the account from the SUL, Thekohser could log in and respond on his Talk page to any sysop considering unblock, who could ask Thekohser what his intentions are, and, as I mentioned, could set conditions if they are considered appropriate. On Wikiversity and all the other wikis where he has been unblocked, no conditions were set, but his requests here have been a bit more "pushy" than elsewhere (and his record here a bit more "troublemaking," possibly), it is up to you.
Good luck with this, Wikiquote. It has happened that when this issue has been considered on the other wikis, some distorted presentations of the history have been presented. I will defer to the judgment of experienced Wikiquote users as to whether or not I should contribute what I know, with evidence, should the need arise. Thanks. --Abd 03:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should unblock. Whatever issues this user has had relating to Wikipedia, they are not an issue within the concern of our project. BD2412 T 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me add a caveat to that. We should unblock Thekohser if he'll agree not to edit pages here relating to Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, or other people involved with Wikipedia. That seems to be the sort of thing that will bring down trouble. Outside of that, we have thousands of pages on historical figures, films, works, and themes for which there is much to be done and every hand would be appreciated. BD2412 T 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems sensible to me, though I might suggest extending the whole of the WMF, given that not all of the board members may not have ever been involved with WP. (This is my suspicion anyways, I haven't actually checked if it is true.) Thenub314 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind you a possible side effect of such unblocking. We at EnWQ Checkuser team have declined Poetlister's request for unblocking for years mainly because of his request has come from an unofficial way, not indicated to him. Doing a favor to another block evader, TheKosher, may open an older can of worms I wouldn't buy. Please note the most of Poetlister or his reincarnation posts per se were within our inclusion policy so arguably productive more than TheKosher's. I am not therefore for BD2412's tolerance here. It's not personal, but rather a matter of consistency. --Aphaia 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should also unblock Poetlister. That's just my opinion on the matter. Blocks should be no more extensive than required to safeguard the productivity of the project. BD2412 T 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to do anything about this? BD2412 T 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to grant certiorari. The basis of the appeal appears to be a juridictional question that has little bearing on the merits. ~ Ningauble 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user stated as the reason for requesting the unblock that he has "not sinned here". What are the merits of the block existing? It seems that this block has nothing to do with anything that occurred on Wikiquote, and I would think that absent a rationale for project-wide blockage (which appear not to exist, since this user is now free to edit on several other projects), our default position should be free and open editing. It is not as though we have no use for extra hands. BD2412 T 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offer -- I see a potential conditional offer above, that perhaps my account could be unlocked (via name change and name-back) and unblocked, if I were to make no edits to Wikiquote pages about Wikimedia-related personalities. That is fine with me. Here is an additional offer -- the current Wikiquote page about Jon Anderson is sorely lacking, featuring only a couple of (relatively obscure) segments of his song lyrics (which may even be a copyright issue). If unlocked/unblocked, I will endeavor to make the Jon Anderson page far better, copyright compliant, and comprehensive than its current status. If that goes well, then I will move on to similar improvements on others of my favorite artists' pages. In order to expedite the decision process, as seemed to work well enough on Wikibooks, I would like to put this to a vote now, since the original blocking admin (Jimmy Wales) has ignored the opportunity to weigh in. --Thekohser (using IP address 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Time to weigh in!

I will agree to continued blocking, not to be reviewed again for 12 months, if the Wikiquote community (I define community as Wikiquote editors with at least 5 edits between June 1, 2010 and August 30, 2010) determines by at least a 40% minority that I should remain blocked. In other words, if 60% or more of the so-defined Wikiquote community would like to see me unblocked to complete at least the page about Jon Anderson, then I should be unblocked. If not, I will go away for 12 months, and we'll also see how that page develops on its own. I would hope that at least 10 community members cast a vote, for the polling to be statistically reliable. The voting should remain open until the end of September 30, UTC time. --Thekohser (using IP address 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • It's really not up to you to determine how and when the community will weigh your unblock request. I grasp your situation (and have already expressed my opinion regarding the block), but I doubt that this proposition is helpful to your case. I personally appreciate your offer "to make no edits to Wikiquote pages about Wikimedia-related personalities", and I hope the community agrees to take you up on that. BD2412 T 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this just stalled? Unblock, on the conditions mentioned by Ripberger, which thekohser has already agreed to, and assuming no contentious editing (which is assumed anyway). It might be easier to unblock (and quickly block again if needed) than to keep drawing this discussion out. --Chriswaterguy 11:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not a contributor of wikiquote) Please don't unblock without a strict indefinite restriction to "make no edits to Wikiquote pages about Wikimedia-related personalities, or about Wikimedia Foundation-related topics, or about Wikipedia editors". This restriction should cut most of the useless drama, and force him to make only productive edits. He made a shorter offer in the section above, but he misteriously forgot to repeat it here, in the offer that actually matters. --Enric Naval 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote in the news columnist Andrew Leonard cited Wikiquote as an authority in debunking a misattribution to Alexis de Tocqueville, and quoted the misattribution note written by contributors Kalki and KHirsh in full ("How the World Works," 12 August 2010). Un-coincidentally, the very next day an IP vandal blanked it from the Misattributed section, and was reverted a few hours later. Such is the price of our fame. ~ Ningauble 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, man. Thanks for pointing it out. —KHirsch 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote in literature

John Wenzel, entertainment writer for The Denver Post, had this to say in his 2009 book, Mock Stars: Indie Comedy and the Dangerously Funny, p. 316:

"Comedy nerds [...] follow comedians around like bands, devouring their every release and obsessively seeking out new material, mentally tattooing catchphrases on their gray matter until their vocabulary resembles a Wikiquote page."

I wonder what he meant by that. Is it a good thing? ~ Ningauble 21:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think he meant that the comedy nerd's vocabulary will consist of the repetoire of quotes from his favored comedian. BD2412 T 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and in that sense an Elizabethan drama nerd's vocabulary also resembles a Wikiquote page. I thought it was interesting to use Wikiquote as a point of reference for characterizing nerdy obsession. If the shoe fits.... ~ Ningauble 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of CreativeEndeavors

Hi, could the socks of CreativeEndeavors be blocked? They are: Future9, TJJordan, JaneDanielsPR, and YuinUniversity. Those are the confirmed ones at English. --Bsadowski1 04:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to signup for "email updates" from a certain page, or topic within a page?

Is it possible to signup for "email updates" from a certain page, or topic within a page? Meaning, to be notified via email of any changes or updates to that page or topic. 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, the software at this website doesn't send out email updates. It does provide a RSS/ATOM feed of your watchlist and recent changes. Some email can simply read these feeds, okay the only email client I know for sure that can do this is Mozilla Thunderbird, but I bet many do. If your willing to create an account with yahoo you can turn this into bona fide emails if that is what you really want. The method would be to use their pipes service to filter the Recent changes feed for the titles your interested in. The pipes software generates a new RSS feed which can be fed into their "feed/blog alerts" which will email you everytime something new gets added to the feed. I should say that this last idea is still somewhat theoretical to me, I have only tested it so far as to make a pipe that filters the Recent changes here for the word "churchill" and mixed that with a wikibooks feed, but I didn't want to flood my inbox so I didn't follow the last step actually generating the email, but it is one of the options listed by their site, so hopefully it would work. These are the two ideas I have off the top of my head. I can't say I endorse (or don't endorse) any of these sites/software, they just happen to be the ones I am familiar with. I think this could work for changes to a page, but not changes to a topic within a page. Thenub314 05:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you very much Thenub314, I will surely try this solution. Best regards, Andy -- 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Simple English' Project closed but still visible with forged quote

I understand that the 'Simple English' project is closed and locked down. However its pages are still visible.

The Thomas Jefferson page ( contains a forged quotation about mob rule (see The Jefferson Encyclopedia). That entry should be removed from that page immediately (if not sooner).

I understand that this may be 'difficult' to reopen the page, edit, and re-close it again, but the issue strikes at the core of credibility of Wikiquote. --HKL47 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to the long list of statements in the "misattributed" section, of the Jefferson page, with the link you have provided, as well as note of it's apparent arrival circa 2004. I never had much enthusiasm or approval of the ideas involved in the Simple English Wikiquote project, but was not active in seeing it closed; but it is something of an embarrassment that many of its pages could be mistaken for pages of the active Wikiquote site; now that the project is actually dead, I do wish they would take it offline. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an embarrassment that the defunct "Simple English Wikiquote" (which might more aptly have been named "Wikiparaphrase") continues to display the Wikiquote™ and Wikimedia™ logos and to occupy a subdomain within nearly two years after the vote to close concluded. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any clear responsibility for anyone to clean up after a decision to close a project. Having locked it down, the developers consider the matter closed.[4] Unless somebody actually wants to adopt the project at the Incubator,[5] the foundation has no procedure for dealing with it.[6]

The ironic effect of this situation is that the more useless the content is, the more likely it is to be maintained in perpetuity, as some kind of monument to folly. There may be a certain wayward appeal in memorializing the explanation that what Jimbo meant by "access to the sum of all human knowledge" is to "find out what anyone else knows" (believe me, there are things I know that are best left unsaid), but it is just not a good idea.

Would there be any point in running an RFC at Meta asking the foundation to take it down, or at least delete the trademarks and remove it from the domain? ~ Ningauble 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

general knowledge

which is the largest river bridge in the world —This unsigned comment is by Pradeep9695735835 (talkcontribs) 06:14, 2 October 2010.

Wikiquote is for quotes:
"Some of the rivers are only a few inches wide. I know a river that is only half-an-inch wide. I know because I measured it and sat beside it for a whole day. [...] Some of the bridges are made of wood, old and stained silver like rain, and some of the bridges are made of stone gathered from a great distance and built in the order of that distance, and some of the bridges are made of watermelon sugar. I like those bridges best."
Richard Brautigan, In Watermelon Sugar (1968), Ch. 1
This is probably not the right place to find an answer to your question. ~ Ningauble 13:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Appel Quotes

Over the past few days I have been removing quotes of Jacob M. Appel from a large number of theme pages. Most of these quotes appear to have been contributed by a puppet ring, as described at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Checkuser request: Appelphilia, where I indicated my intention to remove them. Today an IP user from a dynamic address (, ...140, ...154, ...159, ...161, ...172, ...173, ...176) has reverted most or all of these removals.

I am therefore requesting community comment on whether it is appropriate to keep or to remove these quotations. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove – I believe that these quotes are not suitable for a compendium of famous quotations, primarily because they are not widely quoted in noteworthy sources, and also because they do not appear to be the sort of particularly remarkable statements that will be widely quoted fifty or a hundred years hence. I do recognize that the latter reason is a matter of judgment, for what seems an unremarkable observation or a forgettable wisecrack to one person may seem like an unforgettable gem to another; however, given the pattern of behavior of the person(s) who contributed these items (and the relentlessness apparently espoused by the author[7][citation not verified]), I am skeptical about whether the Quotability of these remarks may not be the opinion of just one person or a small group. (Note also related remarks at Wikipedia about inflating this author's citability.) In the absence of evidence that individual quotes actually are widely quoted in noteworthy sources, I think a presumption that Wikiquote is only being used for promotion is justified in this case. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - We had a similar issue in the past with sock accounts spamming quotes from unreliable nonnotable sources. This should be aggressively stopped. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove : This seems to have been a very deliberate promotional effort by someone of this particular author, and the quotes overall are not all that impressive. I would not exclude the possibility of established editors someday perhaps finding something quoteworthy among this authors statements, that could go elsewhere than this author's page, but the addition of his statements to theme pages by anon IPs or unfamiliar editors should be regarded unfavorably, and this is one of the rare cases where I can agree there has been enough clearly improper activity that there should henceforth be a consensus developed among established and concerned editors to add material by this author to any the theme pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Although I am not usually inclined to such action when quotes are sourced, I agree with the above discussion and certainly question the notability of the person in question as well as the intentions of the anon user and socks that continue to propagate the quotes on multiple pages. ~ UDScott 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Also strikes me as a shameless promotion. Thenub314 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, per comments above. BD2412 T 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overzealous purgings

This dialogue is one that has occurred on my talk page in relationship to the above comments as of 2010·10·13 15:58 UTC, and I am posting them here for further clarification of matters ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + minor tweaks for grammar and clarity ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not enable the Appel socks

Please do not enable the Appel socks, as you have done [8], at the page, Howard Zinn. The RFC at Village Pump is clearly against this [9]. Please do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ningauble's original actions were clearly restricted to removal of this author's material from the theme pages — and I recognized and fully approved the propriety of his actions in this regard, but to the extent he implied that there should be more extensive action taken in response to improper behavior on the part of someone I gave some very definite indications that I considered the material on the author's page itself was NOT something I thought we should be overly concerned with, and also that if established editors found something notable or quoteworthy to be added or retained elsewhere it should not be automatically forbidden, merely because of the source. Though quite willing to seem a fool to others for doing so, I have always been against what I consider the extreme foolishness of establishing too great a mandatory rigor in any policies or expressions of policies, when loose adaptable guidelines tempered by rational responses seem much more appropriate — and less instrumental in the building of cliques and gangs of people who suppose and even presume they have the right or duty to dictate to others what can or cannot be done — based upon their own will and presumptions, rather than clearly established group consensus. To say that there is a clearly developed group consensus for such extremes of action when those commenting after me did not take issue with my tempering comments is quite a leap of presumption.
You have also indulged in what I consider to be clearly overzealous behavior in removing quotes by Howard Zinn, simply because their origins were in an interview with this author, and I stated in restoring them, that I considered the Zinn quotes notable enough to be retained. I do not accept the argument that continually seems to be presented by a very few people that there should be an absolute standard of prior quotation used as one that is appropriate to the growth of this project, nor the actual worth of it as a wiki — where I believe the actual content should for the most part be freely extended, and continually determined by developed consensus and not by some overly restrictive rules established by a very few people, some of whom often seem far more active in making and enforcing such self-serving rules as they seek to create as if they were clear and necessary mandates, than in actively building anything in the project other than such rules. By the levels of participation in such matters, I think I can validly assume MOST people are NOT all that interested in developing many further mandatory restrictions here, and I for one remain adamantly opposed to establishing such over-reaching rules, rather than properly considerate and adaptable guidelines, which should never be treated as absolute mandates.
Going beyond what I believe had clearly developed as consensus you also removed quotes from the author's page for no clear reason that I can see beyond that they did not suit your particular tastes, and to including removal of a quote I found about as a notable as anything this author said, which had been included in the caption: "It is easy to let men alone when they do things our way. The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives very differently from theirs." I am NOT particularly interested in this author, and not favorably impressed with the behavior of accounts that have been promoting him, but I am also certainly not favorably impressed with behavior that I believe amounts to mere censorship, and service of one's own improper presumptions of authority to absolutely dictate to others what they can and cannot do on this wiki, without clearly developed group consensus on matters.
I had not responded immediately to your actions and posts, because when I noticed them I had been too busy with other matters, and when I had attended sufficiently to these, I actually was too weary to deal with the matter, because, quite frankly, I needed to rest and get some sleep, because I have had very little in the last several days; I now am awake, and though there is much more I wish to note I am only making a few brief comments before I must leave for at least a little while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + revised and extended slightly ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

As I stated, I am NOT particularly impressed by this author overall, but in an attempt to restore content on the Appel page, which I saw no clear reason to remove, I encountered a roadblock I have little inclination to attending to, as I must be leaving soon, but will mention here: the site opposingviews[DOT]com seems to have been put on a SPAM protection filter. I have not delved into the matter enough to know whether this is or is not appropriate, but it seems a legitimate site which, at least thus far, I see no clear reason for blocking, simply because this author had posted articles there. I now must be leaving, very soon, and leave to others further comments on these matters for a while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kalki, you have a history of socking yourself, you were desysopped for egregious socking on this project. Please, do not enable spam promotional socking by other users through reverting to restore their non-noteworthy spam quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative action against user Kalki in this matter

In an edit dispute at the Howard Zinn article, over quotes of Zinn from an interview by Appel in a blog, user Kalki and administrator Cirt have engaged in a revert-war. There was a brief, inconclusive discussion of the merits of including these quotes (featuring Kalki's characteristically verbose and digressive style, and Cirt's characteristically curt one), culminating in Cirt blocking Kalki for a period of one week. Cirt also gives sockpuppetry by Kalki as part of the reason for blocking.[10]

Without prejudice to the question of the Zinn quotes or to the community's ambivalent attitude about Kalki's polynymity, I do not approve of blocking users without warning, except in cases of overt vandalism.

I believe that Cirt has misused administrative tools in this instance, and strongly recommend unblocking Kalki. Furthermore, I do not believe that any action should be taken against Kalki in these matters without soliciting community consensus because, whatever one's opinions about the user's idiosyncrasies, this is one of the community's longest standing and highly constructive members. ~ Ningauble 14:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagreed with Ningauble. That said, I endorse Kalki's block. We at EnWQ CU team is investigating his sock farm operation which was on-going just before the block in question. And for excessively multiple accounts, I think we warned Kalki enough from years ago (our first warning was issued in Summer 2008, the second Fall 2009). --Aphaia 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I don't have any position in the revert war mentioned on the above. I expect that Cirt and Kalki are editors matured enough to solve the issue through discussion with the other editors who concern, after the block term is expired. --Aphaia 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too have noticed Kalki's sockpuppets during the last couple months, and disapprove of it. Indeed, I disapprove strongly because they have been used to tag-team on some articles and, I think, to engage in misleading "conversations." However, I still feel that Cirt jumped the gun by blocking before a discussion or investigation is concluded. The first on-wiki mention of Kalki's renewed socking was a blocking notice. Cirt's preemption gives the impression of acting out of interest in an editorial disagreement. ~ Ningauble 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the block itself can be beneficial principally, personally I'm saddened with the way Cirt took. I agree with Ningauble that it wouldn't be our best practice. In my understanding our best practice against problematic users who are no vandals in progress is "first ask, then use the tool". I am not sure if we have documented, though. On the other hand, on timing, Cirt asked me if a certain account which was not mentioned on the above could belong to Kalki and I submitted my firsthand report to checkuser-l on October 12, and analysis was given by several cross-wiki CUs and Cirt as EnWN CU could review that. It had been one day before Cirt performed the block. We are still detecting socks here and there so I won't say we've finished it, but as said, it was whilst not concluded yet, but not based on an assumption. --Aphaia 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Checkuser Aphaia for the endorsement of the block on the Sockpuppeteer, Kalki (talk · contributions). Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalki blocked for a week: please reconsider

New Gadget - UserMessages

  • UserMessages: Adds a script for welcoming registered and IP users, with {{Welcome}} and {{Welcomeip}}. (See bottom left, below toolbox.)
Enjoy! -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noob Questions

I always found the quote by a rather noted antisemitic mathematician interesting. Apparently only departments as prestigious as Harvard could be antisemitic. What would be the best place it? (Assuming it is not somewhere already) Should I start a new Birkhoff page? (It seems a bit anticlimactic for one quote)

"I know you hesitate to appoint the man I recommended because he is a Jew. Who do you think you are, Harvard?" -- Harvard Professor G. D. Birkhoff (ref:A Century of mathematics in America, Volume 1, By Peter L. Duren, Richard Askey, Uta C. Merzbach pg 235.)

Also what is the best way to tell if a quote is already included before adding it somewhere random? Thenub314 06:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add it to the page, Antisemitism? -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thenub314 06:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WQ is a "work in progress". So you could as well start a new page, and hope that other additions later will make it non-anticlimactic. N6n 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but even with the fanatic math centric point of view that I have, I am not sure I think Birkhoff has enough notable quotes to justify his own page. Though I could be wrong. Thenub314 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting this comment in the VfD discussion itself, because I feel that the discussion is properly closed. An objection was raised after my closure of that discussion that the quotes from the newly created page were different from the quotes in the originally deleted page. I checked, and I agree that they are different quotes, but they are the same kind of commentary. Moreover, the page was originally deleted not based on the quality of the quotes, but due to the lack of notability of the author. This aspect has not changed given the repeated deletion of the page on Wikipedia, which has looser standards of notability than ours. I stand by my speedy deletion decision, but I bring it here for the community to review. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BD2412's deletion of the page and closure of the VFD. ~ UDScott 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this admin action by BD2412 (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this was not literally re-creation of deleted content, it was entirely appropriate to speedily delete it as an insufficiently notable subject when a prior discussion had found it to be so. ~ Ningauble 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mild objection to the deletion in an edit summary when I removed the link to the page from the New Pages list "remove dead link to Michael Laitman (though I do actually think this author IS widely published enough to merit a page here and at Wikipedia, despite recent deletions." I actually am not interested in the author enough to work on such a page myself at this point — but did note that the author was a widely published author (by various publishers, and not merely a few vanity press books), with works that included The Complete Idiot's Guide To Kabbalah, and judging by his extensive listing at I saw no reason to consider him a non-notable author, despite past actions here and at Wikipedia. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Title of Article

How do I modify the article title? For example: from "David Levy (psychologist)" to "David Levy."

Wikipedia has detailed instructions for How to move a page. Since you are not yet an "autoconfirmed" user, I have moved the page for you. ~ Ningauble 14:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"American" or "U.S."?

In my author descriptors, I prefer the term "U.S." to "American." America consists of two continents with a large number of countries. The U.S. is only one of them. Has this been discussed before? Can someone point me to the discussion?

If this hasn't been discussed, please consider it a proposal: let us use the term "U.S." for those from the United States and reserve "American" for descriptions that apply to more than one country. Gilbertson49 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care really all that much one way or the other, but I have two thoughts: first, "U.S." is a noun, not an adjective, so it doesn't really work to describe someone (as an example, you wouldn't say that a person is an "England author" - you would say "English author.") Second, while you are correct that the U.S.A. is not the only country in the continent, I believe that the use of "American" to describe people from the U.S.A. is pretty common and would not cause people to mistake it for someone from another country within North or South America. Just my two cents. ~ UDScott 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first point. I don't know of an adjective other than "American" what would work. On your second point, I think it is . . . well, imperialistic isn't quite the right word; maybe insensitive? . . . to assume that residents of other countries on our shared continent aren't Americans. Gilbertson49 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point - I'm not saying that calling someone from Brazil an "American" isn't technically correct, but I've never heard of someone from Brazil being called anything but a Brazilian. And people from the U.S. are known throughout the world as Americans. Right or wrong, this is a fact and I don't think we're trying to make any political statements here, but rather just make it easy for users of the site to find people based on common categories. I'm still not sure how you would like to categorize someone such as Al Gore as anything but "American." At least to me, this has nothing to do with imperialism or insensitivity, but rather ease of use of the site. ~ UDScott 02:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's technically correct to call someone from Wales a Briton, but most from Wales would prefer to be referred to as Welsh. I guess this is like your Brazilian/American example. My suggestion is that we should be specific whenever possible. That's why Welsh is preferable to British. And that's why I think U.S. is preferable to American. But I concede that you're right that for most people "American" and "legal resident of the U.S." are equivalent. I would refer to Al Gore as a U.S. citizen. I guess I'll let the argument go unless I can come up with a less awkward way to refer to Mr. Gore. Gilbertson49 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UDScott. People from the United States are generally and universally referred to as American, and that is the appellation we should use. We are not in the business of trying to change the way the world uses words. BD2412 T 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the article:

Spanish and Portuguese speakers may refer to people from the United States as norteamericanos and norte-americanos respectively ("North Americans"), though these terms can refer to Canadians and sometimes Mexicans. The Real Academia Española discourages the use of americano or americana for U.S. citizen, and recommends the use of estadounidense[21]. Many Latin Americans object to the use of the term "Americans" to refer to U.S. citizens, finding it to be an appropriation of the collective pan-continental identity. However, this usage has historical roots.[22] Other languages which optionally distinguish the two uses include Japanese, French, Finnish, Italian, and Navajo. Other languages, such as Chinese, Korean, Swahili, Vietnamese, and Esperanto, have different terms for U.S. citizens and people from the Americas.

The same linguistic ambiguity that occurs in English use of the term "American" occurs in the other European languages: to compensate for this, French (predominantly Quebec French[10]) and Italian speakers may refer to U.S. citizens respectively as États-unien and statunitense, though this is less common. German speakers may distinguish between "American" and "US-American" (German: Amerikaner and US-Amerikaner, pronounced [uːɛsʔameʀiˈkaːnɐ]). This confusion is also present in Portuguese, as people from the United States may alternatively be referred to as americanos in that language.[11] However, in Spanish, americano chiefly refers to all people from the Western Hemisphere, and using it in the United States sense may be considered offensive; the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas de la Real Academia Española advises against using it in this sense.[12] (end of quotation)

So some Latin Americans and Quebec residents consider the use of the term "American" to refer to US residents as offensive. Isn't that reason enough to consider an alternative?

As I said above, what alternative would you propose? From the same Wikipedia article you cite, come these: "All forms of English refer to these people as "Americans"..." and "Nevertheless no alternative to "American" is common." My point was that I don't believe that this site is in the business of political correctness or trying to change what the world commonly uses to refer to people from the U.S.A. ~ UDScott 13:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbertson49, this is an English-language compilation. It really doesn't matter if, for example, Germans would distinguish between Amerikaner and US-Amerikaner. They can do so on German Wikiquote, where presumably such a distinction would be sensible to the readers. BD2412 T 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usage is universal in the English language and this is the English Wikiquote, so we really don't have any choice. "American" is indeed ambiguous, as it may refer to peoples of the continents or the country, but there is no widely used English alternative for referring to the peoples of the country. The Spanish word "Americano" is less ambiguous, as it usually refers to peoples of the continents, and that is how it should be used at the Spanish Wikiquote.

Language is an illogical, untamable beast. It seems absurd that we still use the name German mapmaker Martin Waldseemüller chose to label his maps of 1507 in honor of Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci, especially since he dropped the name himself in his later maps of 1513. It might be better if the land had remained "Terra Incognita" (we could call its peoples the Incogniti), but the question was settled centuries ago.

It is not Wikiquote's place to try to change the language, and Wikiquote is not the place to argue such changes. ~ Ningauble 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem at all absurd that we use Waldseemueller's coinage, because that is the name that the framers of the U.S. constutution chose for their country. It is, after all, "the United States of America"; "America" is the name, "United States" is just an appositive (compare Commonwealth of Australia, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of the Netherlands; contrast United Mexican States). 121a0012 15:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the absurd digression about the arbitrariness of names. It was only an attempt at levity. My real point lies in the initial and final paragraphs. ~ Ningauble 15:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to UDScott's response to my original post, U.S. is commonly used as an adjective. Two common examples are "the U.S. Navy," and "the U.S. Postal Service." And the use of U.S. as an adjective is not new. Here is a quote from a 1912 dictionary: “United States, used attributively, of or pertaining to the United States of America ; American: as, the United States army; the United States navy; the United State* statutes; colloquially, the United States language. The adjective United States is used where American may appear less exact.” From The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: The Century dictionary (1912) retrieved 11/23/2010 Here are other citations for U.S. as an adjective:
U.S. Use as an adjective only; spell out United States when used as a noun.
From the Colorado University Communications Style Guide retrieved 11/23/2010
Spell out United States as a noun; use U.S. as an adjective.
Political Science Quarterly Style Guide retrieved 11/23/2010
What is the proper adjective of unites states [sic.]?
United States is commonly used as a noun, but it can function as an adjective. For example: The Unites States Navy (describing which Navy)The United States border (specificing [sic.] which border) From retrieved 11/23/2010
5 FAH-1 H-1032 USING THE ADJECTIVE FORM (CT:CH-19; 7-27-2007)
a. The adjective "American" is commonly used in informal speech or correspondence when referring to the United States of America (e.g., American Ambassador, American Embassy, etc.). When it is important to show the sovereignty of the United States of America, use the adjective "United States" or "U.S.", (e.g., United States citizen, U.S. territorial possessions, etc.).
b. In informal correspondence, the adjective "United States" or the abbreviation "U.S.” may be used. When using "United States" as a noun, always spell it out.
From U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Handbook Volume 5 Handbook 1 - Correspondence Handbook retrieved 11/23/2010
So I propose to identify authors from the United States as U.S. authors rather than American authors. It is a grammatically correct and unambiguous term. Political scientists and the State Department use it, and that's good enough for me.

Well, I think there has been discussion enough to call a vote. The proposal on the table is "to identify authors from the United States as U.S. authors rather than American authors".

  • Oppose. American is fine, and is more natural. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with BD2412. 121a0012 06:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mandating the term US vs American. I've no objection to people using the more specific term US as their own preferences in personal communication, but American is quite the standard and accepted form of designation. Even though it is arguably more inclusive of nationalities than the term US would be, so are many terms in general use by many cultures, like the term "norteamericano" among spanish speakers. It is simply the norm, and though greater precision and specificity might be desirable on many occasions, as might be the case when referring to people as simply Europeans, Africans, Asians or natives of any broad geographic regions, it suffices as an accepted designation in most. It does permit broader interpretations than the nation-specific term "US" would — but in no way impels it. As should be clear to those most familiar with me, I generally tend to favor the maintaining of socially and morally acceptable freedoms, rather than the constraining of them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should use which ever terms we most prefer. I tend to like "American". Thenub314 14:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Formal usage for emphasizing sovereignty is "United States Senator", but the far more conventional usage for identifying nationality is "American boy." ~ Ningauble 14:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't find any dictionary that puts the sense of "someone from the Americas" first; indeed, Webster does not give that meaning.[13][14].--Longfellow 14:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the reasons I've already stated above. ~ UDScott 15:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor, for the reasons state above. Gilbertson49 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie questions w: appears

I looked for an answer to this and couldn't find it. Whenever I include a link to a Wikipedia article (for example w:Henri Estienne), the w: appears in the text. If I don't include the w: then there is no link. Capitalization and spacing don't seem to make any difference. Whatever I'm doing wrong is probably obvious, but I can't see it. —This unsigned comment is by Gilbertson49 (talkcontribs) 20:57, 19 November 2010.

Color coordination for misattribution sections

I have proposed before that one way that Wikiquote can set itself above typical quotation references is to provide a Snopes-like function of debunking misattributed quotes, showing when and how the misattribution arose. Famous coiners of witticisms, like Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin, tend to have large numbers of these quotes attributed to them. In order to clearly demarcate misattributed quotes, I would like to propose we put quotes in such a section against a lightly colored background like this. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support : I much like this idea; it will prevent some errors on the part of some to take the "Misattributed" section as just another section. Implementation can be recommended, and gradually proceed to the extent we come across pages needing such formatting. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that the occasional "Disputed" sections where the case is weaker for either confirmation or rejection, could be designated with a pale pastel yellow. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid idea! May I suggest a somewhat lighter tint such as  #FFE7CC  or  #FFF0DD ? For large swaths of color, it only takes a little bit to stand out a lot, and tired old eyes need a light background for readability. For "Disputed" sections I would recommend a tint like  #FCFCCC  or  #FFFFD7 . ~ Ningauble 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like the ideas, and agree with Ningauble's suggested colors and Kalki's additional suggestion to identify Disputed as well. ~ UDScott 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the shades suggested by Ningauble, with no strong preferences among them at this point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong preference as to the shade, as long as it stands out from the rest of the page. I do feel, however, that a reddish tint conveys a sense of "warning: the subject didn't actually say this".

Also, I have reviewed various previous discussions that we have had regarding misattributed quotes at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 1#Verified versus Sourced (May 2004); Wikiquote:Village pump archive 2#Attributed? (December 2004); Wikiquote:Village pump archive 22#George H. W. Bush quote (February 2008); Wikiquote:Village pump archive 28#Current People Template Obsolete? (September 2009); and Wikiquote:Village pump archive 29#Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections (October 2009). I have cobbled together some propositions from the foregoing at Wikiquote:Misattribution, which might be merged into Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections. Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are patches in the four colors suggested by Ningauble (the misattributed quote is from Thomas Jefferson):

  • The best government is that which governs least.
    • Motto of United States Magazine and Democratic Review. First used in introductory essay by editor John L. O'Sullivan in the premier issue (October, 1837, p. 6). Attributed to Jefferson by Henry David Thoreau, this statement is cited in his essay on civil disobedience, but the quote has not been found in Jefferson's own writings. It is also commonly attributed to Thomas Paine, perhaps because of its similarity in theme to many of his well-documented expressions such as "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
    • Variant: That government is best which governs least.
  • The best government is that which governs least.
    • Motto of United States Magazine and Democratic Review. First used in introductory essay by editor John L. O'Sullivan in the premier issue (October, 1837, p. 6). Attributed to Jefferson by Henry David Thoreau, this statement is cited in his essay on civil disobedience, but the quote has not been found in Jefferson's own writings. It is also commonly attributed to Thomas Paine, perhaps because of its similarity in theme to many of his well-documented expressions such as "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
    • Variant: That government is best which governs least.
  • The best government is that which governs least.
    • Motto of United States Magazine and Democratic Review. First used in introductory essay by editor John L. O'Sullivan in the premier issue (October, 1837, p. 6). Attributed to Jefferson by Henry David Thoreau, this statement is cited in his essay on civil disobedience, but the quote has not been found in Jefferson's own writings. It is also commonly attributed to Thomas Paine, perhaps because of its similarity in theme to many of his well-documented expressions such as "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
    • Variant: That government is best which governs least.
  • The best government is that which governs least.
    • Motto of United States Magazine and Democratic Review. First used in introductory essay by editor John L. O'Sullivan in the premier issue (October, 1837, p. 6). Attributed to Jefferson by Henry David Thoreau, this statement is cited in his essay on civil disobedience, but the quote has not been found in Jefferson's own writings. It is also commonly attributed to Thomas Paine, perhaps because of its similarity in theme to many of his well-documented expressions such as "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
    • Variant: That government is best which governs least.
All of these shades look acceptable to me — but of the four, for effectiveness I would probably prefer to use the more intense shades of orange and yellow. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the top one of this group. It does not appear that anyone is objecting to this proposal. I think we should leave it open for one week from the initial post, and then call it decided and implement. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about cases where the author said something similar to the commonly given quote but not exactly the same, like "Water, water anywhere but not a drop to frink" which should be "nor any drop to drink"?--Longfellow 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations like that, if they have seeped into popular culture, should go in the comments following the correct quote, along the lines of "sometimes erroneosly reported as foo". BD2412 T 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections to these proposals and they are likely to be accepted, I have begun to use each of these suggestions on the John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton‎, and Gracie Allen‎ pages, and both together on the Francis of Assisi page.

I have used the formatting prior to the section heading, as I believe this looks best using these formatting codes:

& nbsp; <!-- Start of NEXT "Disputed" section's formatting -->{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px" |class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #FCFCCC; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

|}<!-- END of section--> & nbsp;

& nbsp; <!-- Start of NEXT "Misattributed" section's formatting -->{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px" |class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #FFE7CC; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

|}<!-- END of section--> & nbsp;

I don't plan to make a specific task of it, but henceforth, I will probably apply these to any such sections I encounter in my normal editings. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed already, after brief experimentation, that there might be some formatting issues that arise with some pages — and various tweaks might need to be worked out by the person applying the changes. I added some text to correct some image imbalances that occurred on the Francis of Assisi page — and I find that placing a blank "& nbsp;" space before or after the designated sections seems to have what I would consider a generally better aesthetic layout, and thus have just added these to my formatting representations above (with a space between the "&" and "nbsp" so they show up here — I don't normally deal with html code any more than I have to, and don't recall any simpler way of doing it at this point). ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSS for misattribution sections

Instead of using tables with style attributes, I think we should use div tags with class attributes and add CSS for those classes in the MediaWiki:Common.css style sheet. I've set up a demo on my web site.

I copied Francis of Assisi from Wikiquote. Then I changed it to use div tags at Francis of Astylesheet. I added the CSS to my MediaWiki:Common.css.

This will allow any changes to the appearance to be made in one place, and users could even override them with custom CSS pages.

Furthermore, with the use of an extension, the quote pages wouldn't need to be changed at all, even to add div tags. Using the StyleBySection extension, I created Francis of Automation. On this page I used XDisputed and XMisattributed just so that you could see the above pages correctly. Otherwise they would be double boxed, like this. In practice, the X would not be necessary.

I had to add one line ("return true;") to StyleBySection to get it to work with the newest version of MediaWiki. Other than that, the only changes were:

KHirsch 08:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach. I was going to make some templates for this today, which would also make it easier to format articles and keep the format consistent, especially as we continue to tweak it or to revamp it sometime down the road. Custom css would get the job done and would be slightly more efficient for the servers to render, but would be less user-friendly for the average person to maintain.

I have mixed feelings about using the extension, but it would afford the greatest automation since one would not even need to tag the articles. What do others think? Should I hold off from writing templates for this? ~ Ningauble 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently would favor the more direct approach of simply applying the formatting to the pages — but I have no strong opinions against anything which would get the job done without too many complications. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer to keep it simpler, which to my thinking is to have the formatting code on the page itself. BD2412 T 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that there could be drawbacks to installing an extension, but I can't agree that directly embedding formatting is simpler or more desirable in any way. Compare:
<div class="disputed">
    previous disputed content
<div class="misattributed">
    previous misattributed content


{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
|class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #FCFCCC; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|
    previous disputed content
{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
    previous misattributed content
It's not even simpler if you do it once. And if you ever want to change the look, of course, it's no trouble at all if you use CSS, whereas it would be a considerable task with embedded formatting. —KHirsch 18:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much easier for the average user to use templates than to muck with raw html. They also make it easier to keep the format consistent, especially as we continue to tweak it or to revamp it sometime down the road. Therefore, I created the following templates:
I have used the first pair for example at Mark Twain.

If we decide to use css then the templates can be revised accordingly, but templatizing resolves the greatest part of any ease-of-use issues. Whatever implementation we settle on, we should consider providing advice at Wikiquote:Guide to layout, Wikiquote:Templates, Wikiquote:Manual of style, &tc. ~ Ningauble 19:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Well done! BD2412 T 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good solution. —KHirsch 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought so as well, but trying it out on the Alfred the Great article, I've noticed that currently the "edit" button brings me to the template page rather than to the section on the page to be edited. I hope there is some way to get around this problem without too much trouble, and can agree that further exploration along these lines is appropriate, and seems to provide the simplest overall strategy. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rats! I forgot about the problem with section edit buttons for headers inside templates. Last I checked, there is no workaround for this, though it has come up at Bugzilla a few times. I have removed the section header from the templates, and it will have to be entered manually. The Twain and Alfred articles are updated accordingly. ~ Ningauble 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have templated every misattribution section I could find. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I have done likewise for such remaining Disputed sections as I was able to locate. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote in the news (2)

More gleanings not so hot off the press:

More reliable than...

The Telegraph (Macon, GA) reports in "Political Notebook: End of Macon committees?" (7 August 2010) that U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall repeated a quote attributed to Ben Franklin that he found written on "a pile of trash or boxes". Staff writers Phillip Ramati and Mike Stucka cite Wikiquote to debunk the misattribution, pondering "Is that site reliable? Well, maybe a bit more than New York street art." At least the congressman was responsible enough to cite his source.

What it means

The Herald (government of Zimbabwe), in "Zimbabwe: Nobel Laureates - Controversies, Omissions" (30 October 2010) quotes a bit from E. M. Forster's Howards End, and attributes an explanation of Forster's words to Wikiquote, saying "According to Wikiquote, this means...." Actually, the "explanation" is just part of the next quote in Wikiquote's article. Perhaps opinion writer Tendai Hildegarde Manzvanzvike does not draw a sharp distinction between quotation and commentary.

~ Reported by Ningauble 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th century deaths

There are currently 706 pages in this category. Other than the amount of work involved, is there any reason not to split this up into decades, as has been done for 20th and 21st century deaths? I would be happy to do at least some of the necessary work if people think it would be useful.--Longfellow 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason that I can think of - you are right that it would be good to divide this up into the decades. ~ UDScott 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wouldn't be that much work, actually. I could do it with AWB in a few days. BD2412 T 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has also been done for 18th century deaths. I don't think we need to break out earlier centuries unless/until the number of entries approaches 200, the amount that normally displays on one page. ~ Ningauble 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I agree completely. BD2412 T 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something else that would be useful, though more difficult, would be to identify which articles have no death/living category. I have recently had to add a category to several people as notable as Victor Hugo and Charles Lamb for example.--Longfellow 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrolling and strange page evolution

I tried to do some RC patrolling after I noticed some vandalism. I came across someone removing material from Small Soldiers without explanation. I glanced at the history and realized this has been going on for a long time. Compare the current version with this version. I thought I would leave a note here because this strikes me as perhaps a patient vandal who is removing quotes one at a time from pages they don't like (With a few random edits thrown in for cover internal/external, etc.) until the page they don't like is blank. Has anyone noticed this MO before? Thenub314 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to last most complete version. Never seen this before, but I'm not surprised. BD2412 T 04:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth warning or blocking who did a significant amount of the shrinking (including removing the last paragraph which caught my attention)? Thenub314 05:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect from the edits that immediately followed that our vandal does not have a static IP. BD2412 T 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a project to import themes from the 1922 Hoyt's (currently hosted in an unformatted state at Wikisource) at Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seldom correct but never in doubt

Does anyone recognize this quote? Someone told it to me 15 years or so ago. I think they said it was from a poem. I'm not sure it's exactly phrased properly. But I've loved it since I heard it. It applies to so many people.

Some information here. Not sure how credible any of it is. Aigrette 07:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the talkpage message botcasted to many, but not all, administrators earlier today: Wikiquote-l looks like a great place to post things you don't want anybody to notice. For myself, I no longer subscribe to any mailing lists. Since retiring from the corporate world I am very pleased to not be spending half of every morning filtering mass emails anymore. ~ Ningauble 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced from "the internet," but...

citing a newspaper? Not sure how to note the source from a quote like this one:

"I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun's energy.... If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago." - Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973

Which appears in this form on many sites. That's lots of unreliable sources, seemingly pointing to a "reliable source" that I don't have access to. --Chriswaterguy 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the direct source seems reliable, and the original source plausible, there is not an absolute need to look further, but one could run a check through internet search engines such as Google Books to insure that it is quoted in published documents to such a source, as it seems to be. One should always be wary of the possibility of uncharacteristic or even characteristic comments being given legitimate sounding sources, as this is increasingly used by hoaxers ranging from people with political or personal agendas to irresponsible pranksters with rather vacuous levels of awareness or disregard of the damages or distress they might conceivably cause. The more solid a citation can be to earliest available sources the better it is for all. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing here is the title of the article and the page number in which it appeared. Newspapers have a tendency to "improve" quotations, so we actually have no idea if Porter actually said this, or if it's simply the reporter putting words in Porter's mouth that he did not object to. 121a0012 18:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, since it is best to cite a source one has seen for oneself (if it is a reliable one, which "all over the internet" is not), one could say "attributed by XXXX to a quote in YYYY" when XXXX is a reliable source one has examined, such as a notable book of quotations, and YYYY is an incomplete citation one has not verified. ~ Ningauble 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of context

Quotations can be misconstrued enormously without knowledge of their context. Example: Simon Bolivar's quote "[The United States] appears destined by Providence to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom." Maybe a disclaimer on the main page about the importance of context is in order.

Not on the main page, I think; but some individual quotes that are readily misconstrued have (well sourced) context notes provided with the citations. ~ Ningauble 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]