Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31


Archives
2003 2004 2005: 01–06 · 07–09 · 09–12 2006: 01–05 · 06 · 07–09 · 10–11 · 12 2007: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05–06 · 07 · 08–11 · 12 2008: 01 · 02–04 · 05–06 · 07–08 · 09–10 · 11–12 2009: 01–02 · 03–09 · 10–12 2010: 01–06 · 07–12 2011: 01–05 · 06–08 · 09–12 2012: 01–02 · 03–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2013: 01–06 · 07–12 2014: 01–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2015: 01–03 · 04–08 · 09–12 2016: 01–03 · 04–07 · 08–12 2017: 01–06 · 07–12 2018: 01–06 · 07–12 2019: 01–06 · 07–12 2020: 01–06 · 07–12 2021: 01–06 · 07–12 2022: 01–06 · 07–12 2023: 01–06 · 07–12

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]

Gone. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

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]

Question

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]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Shaped by God

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]

Wikiquote:Unlisted names - new sort

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, victoryforever.com. 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]

New gadget: wikt:MediaWiki:Gadget-WiktSidebarTranslation.js

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]

Question

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 irc.freenode.net 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 irc.wikimedia.org 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 irc.wikimedia.org 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]

ABOUT DOT COM

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, http://wikiwix.com 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]

Wikiquote:External links

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. -- 68.87.42.110 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 68.87.42.110 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 68.87.42.110 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 (talk • contribs) .

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 en.wiki 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 68.87.42.110 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 68.87.42.110 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]

Unblock per thekohser's agreement stated here. Ripberger 01:17, 9 October 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

Salon.com 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]

Confirmed here too thus blocked. --Aphaia 15:50, 18 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. 148.87.67.139 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 --148.87.67.140 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 (http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) 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 wikiquote.org 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 wikiquote.org 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (173.244.219.133, ...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]
- Update: See also socking at English Wikipedia, at w:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO and w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 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

Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki granted IPblockexempt, this will be revoked if the main account is blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Kalki is one of the top contributer at WQ. To block him for a week merely for (supposedly) enforcing policy is just wrong. Besides:

The block says: Abusing multiple accounts: User:Crystal Blue Persuasion socking at Template:New pages, and disruptive editing and enabling of spam promo edits of socks of User:TRATTOOO.

Nowhere does the policy say that "socking" is prohibited, only that "abusing" it is prohibited. I don't see anything which could be construed as "abuse" in Kalki's edits. I am not lawyering: prohibiting multiple accounts per se would just not make sense, because you shouldn't block something merely because you don't understand it, there should be an abuse.
The quotes in question are not "spam". ([11])
Does a quote becomes noteworthy only if a (i)not-associated-with-the-quote (ii)WQ editor deems it such? (It is "promo" otherwise.) In any case, by reinserting the quote, a n-a-w-t-q, WQ editor is, after all, claiming it to be noteworthy--which pulls the rug from under the issue.

I am requesting the admins to reconsider it. The proffered reasons don't add up, WQ will miss Kalki's contributions worth one week, and WQ may lose Kalki's goodwill by this. I came across the block by chance. (Although I have interacted with Kalki in the past.) N6n 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined on checkuser results which won't be released for privacy concerns. I'd add to Cirt's reasoning as follows:

The listed sock is not the whole of his recent sockpuppets. Multiple account creation restarted at least in August. We haven't finished the current investigation, so it would start earlier. or not.
Accumulating excessively multiple accounts without necessity is abuse of computing resource per se. Moreover, it's a crosswiki level disruption several projects' CUs are got involved for investigation, and it's not the first.
We have been tolerant for Kalki, hoping our persuasion may work on him finally. But we might be wrong. It's the third time his sock farm is discovered, and I agree with Cirt that a practical method, not only by words, is required to stop him. --　Aphaia 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Checkuser Aphaia, I am in agreement with this review. Perhaps having one alternate account for most users is not an abuse of socking but having over 200 socks most certainly is an abuse of socking. Kalki has shown an unwillingness to not build such massive sockfarms across multiple Wikimedia projects, and this most certainly is an abuse. Kalki should be restricted to one account, namely, "Kalki". -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Kalki wants to have a thousand socks and use them to talk to himself, I see no problem with that so long as he is not using them to make multiple votes in deletion debates and similar discussions. From what I gather, Kalki's motivation is that his philosophy is to make many small improvements without taking credit for them. I think a one-week block is out of proportion to any harm being addressed. BD2412 T 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If Kalki wants to have a thousand socks and use them to talk to himself..." - no, that is just completely inappropriate. Strongly object to users having hundreds of socks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you that it is a highly eccentric behavior. While it gives rise to the potential for great disruption, I am struggling to see much in the way of actual harm coming from Kalki. BD2412 T 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote FloNight from Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki where Kalki was desysopped, who stated, "My partial review of your many many accounts showed deliberate efforts on your part to appear as if you were 2 people when you were doing administrative type work, in editing disputes, or in community discussions. This type of deception is a fundamental violation of trust on every wiki where I participate including this one". I agree with this statement. -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't argue with that. BD2412 T 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Kalki engaged in "deception to influence discussions" since? If not, Cirt's quote is useless.

When administrative convenience and computing resources --what enables these computing resources?-- becomes more important than having contributions, you know that the project has been overtaken by bureaucracy. N6n 04:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki has been building sock farms since then, creating new socks across multiple projects. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What an extraordinary taste I—I can't imagine such a thing,—most revolting!—abominable!" With that he paused a moment, and then snapped out, "However, I can't see but that he is within his rights, and he shall have them."... [T]here it was; "justice is always the same," and no stress of personal taste or distaste can force a way around the fact; and so the incident was closed.
Moreover, it was closed without prejudice. The young sapengro never had the faintest official hint that his bizarre taste had come under notice. Here, as always in like cases, the force of invariable example brought out a third great truth about justice, namely: that justice is seldom enough. It showed how necessary it is that matters should be managed, not only with justice, but with the appearance of justice, and that very often the appearance of justice is as important as the substance of justice. ~ Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs

Administrators have failed to act with a befitting behaviour. If having alter-accounts helps WQ overall, and it does not specifically trouble others, the issue should not even arise. The question is not whether there are aspects of his behavior that don't appeal to you, but only, that whether it helps or hurts WQ (as long as the behaviour is not immoral). N6n 05:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help WQ, and in light of past behavior patterns, most certainly is not appropriate behavior to create such large sockfarms, especially in light of past sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
I will summarize my two points (both of which are sufficient in themselves to establish that the block is unjustified). Also, I have added another point.

Justice: Alternate accounts are not prohibited.
Pragmatic reasons:
- What is better, Kalki with his idiosyncrasies, or no Kalki?
- Given his past contributions, Kalki shouldn't have been banned for a week.
Cirt's behaviour:
- In the justification for banning, Template:New pages has been added gratuitously. User:Crystal Blue Persuasion made only two edits, adding [[Christian de Duve]] and [[Oliver Heaviside]]. Are the additions right or wrong?
- In the previous thread, Cirt uses the phrase "the Sockpuppeteer, Kalki" to refer to Kalki. Is "Sockpuppeteer" the only epithet relevant here?
- Cirt goes back to add on User_Talk:Kalki, that the unblock request has been denied by Aphaia and that in another comment Aphaia endorsed the block, but doesn't add what Ningauble and BD2412 said. (Although this behaviour may be customary after unblock request, I don't know.)

I have nothing more to say on this topic. N6n 09:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (A mistake: When Justice is invoked, all other standards vanish. Therefore, my argument reduces to just the first point.) N6n 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building sock farms of over 200 socks is not something one would characterize as simply "idiosyncrasies", it is disruptive to multiple Wikimedia sites. Socking is not excused based on who the user is that is doing the socking. Socks and alternate accounts should not edit process-pages, including templates which appear on the Main Page, per w:WP:SOCK. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing template pages with alternate-accounts is indeed prohibited. N6n 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki's IP connection blocked for a YEAR: please reconsider

See Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not need its own entire separate subsection for one sentence fragment. Please keep discussion at one page and not across multiple different pages. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful: "See X" is not a fragment, it is a complete sentence in the imperative mood. My grammatical sins tend in the opposite direction, toward excessively long and convoluted constructions. (And a one year block is a substantial change of subject for a section about a one week block.) I raised it at AN because it appears to involve technical details about the use of Admin tools, and I mentioned it here not to fork the discussion, but to give notice to interested non-admin members of the community. ~ Ningauble 00:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks are on the socks and IPs behind the 200-plus-massive-cross-Wikimedia-site sock farms, not the sockmaster account Kalki itself. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: IP was blocked as it was behind massive 200 plus cross Wikimedia site sockfarms

Note: The IPs related to the Kalki sockmaster account were blocked in order to prevent further socking, something the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop doing. Therefore, the blocks on the socks of the Kalki account and the IPs, are appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF I were intent on simply being an abusive obnoxious idiot such as regularly vandalize and troll the wikis, it is a quite simple matter to evade such blocks and measures as others have set up against me, my IPs and my accounts — but that actually is NOT the case, no matter how often they would like to imply it or even claim it, and I remain adamantly opposed to their efforts to constrain or control the productive endeavors of myself or anyone else in ways which are not clearly necessary, or clearly decided by community mandates, and not simply upon very loose and presumptively restrictive interpretations of past efforts to constrain or limit people's activities. I am currently working from someone else's computer, which I have regular access to, and which does not seem affected by the complications on my own home computer. I expect to only briefly be at this location, so I probably won't do much at this time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, comment by FloNight regarding actions by Kalki diff. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you seem extremely intent on highlighting that particular assessment by FloNight and preventing any of my subsequent responses to that charge from being considered by the casual observer — the FULL account of dialogue on that page is also available. Though I was not so successful in my arguments as to retain adminship, I actually decided not to pursue the issue so fully as I could and bring all the information I might have brought to bear into discussion at that time, as the levels of potential "punishment" inflicted on me with the loss of adminship was something I considered not worth the dangers or burdens of revealing much more information at that time. My reluctance to reveal much that I withheld out of a greater sense of prudence and genuine concern for the actual welfare of others has considerably diminished in the past year, as some of the dangers or detrimental aspects of such revelations have passed or already occurred, and much which I am capable of disclosing, and increasingly willing to of reveal in coming weeks, could probably cast considerable light on much I previously preferred to keep unmentioned or obscured, as to the beneficial aims and intentions of much of my activities. I might only briefly be at this location, where I can edit without the rather pointless persisting block related to my current home IP, but I will probably attempt to make a more extensive analysis of quite a few matters within the next few days. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting this comment neglects to acknowledge the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop socking. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH more interesting to me is the fact that your comments and activities REGULARLY neglect and attempt to obscure, hide, remove, and use your admin abilities to actually DELETE much of significance to many issues of relevance to this and other discussions. As well as persisting in apparent attempts to make it difficult or even impossible for me to further communicate here at all, if you could find some trivial technicality by which to actually get away with that. There is a HUGE difference in disposition between someone who uses technicalities available to maintain or develop options for constructive contributions and human rights and liberties, and those who seek to use them to constrain, restrict and control human options and freedoms. I certainly do NOT hide or deny the fact that I continue to persist in maintaining that multiple accounts ARE and should be an available option to editors for a multitude of reasons that need not necessarily be specified to others, any more than their reasons for editing here at all are. I actually have no immediate plans to use any of my alternate accounts at present but am frankly disgusted at your continual efforts to vilify such activity as if it was innately unethical, no matter how innocuous and innocent its aim and actual execution; the VERY FEW occasions which could be reasonably construed to be other than that which occurred years ago, hardly merit such persistent assumptions and accusations, but I persist in seeking to do much good here, and keep things as free as possible of unjust dictatorial constraints, whereas I perceive many of the activities of a few others as having acted primarily towards increasing such constraints. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assertions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe not — and unlike those of many others, I believe I will be able to provide clear proof of some of these assertions which others will not be pleased to have revealed. I am not at home at present, and might not be for a few hours yet, but I will probably get busy on some presentation efforts there later today. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki restriction proposal

There are two topics of heated discussion floating throughout this thread. One is about Cirt's handleing of the situation, the second is about Kalki's behavior. I would like to avoid taking sides to be honest.

But above the question was asked "Has Kalki engaged in 'deception to influence discussions' since? If not, Cirt's quote is useless." Cirt's quote was one referring a comment made by FloNight in the case where Kalki was desysoped. I decided this was worth investigating.

It turns out I severely underestimated the amount of work necessary in deciding if any of the accounts had been involved in any deceit or abuse. When examining an article to see how Kalki's socks are interacting with other users it is quite difficult to get a sense of, because the number of people in the history list that are actually Kalki may be quite large on some articles. For example, on Jesus socks Baldur, Lugh, Crystal Blue Persuasion and Kalki have all been active. This doesn't seem to be that unusual a page, at many pages the edit histories which at first glance may make it appear that many people are editing the page are really in fact just the various socks of Kalki. Also, it seems to me the socks avoided discussing editing disputes on talk pages and simple reverted changes they were unhappy with (See for example the seemingly good faith edits by 71.203.136.254 that included an attempt to remove the image from Blues brothers, but the image was restored twice by Merlin Ambrosius without discussion). The result is it is very difficult to see where there were conflicts that arose between the socks and other users without carefully examining edits. I am abandoning my attempts to understand if these socks have committed any blatant policy violations.

Does any of these amount to clear abuse? Probably not any one edit or page in and of itself, but the scale and extent of the deception is something that should not be tolerated. And I did choose the word deception. (For example, on User talk:Singinglemon, both Lugh and Kalki present the appearance that they are two different people in their discussion with Singinglemon.)

Thus I would like to formally propose an community restriction be placed on Kalki's activities. I suggest that:

Kalki be allowed to edit only with the account User:Kalki.
Any violations of the above can result in a 3 month block.
Further transgressions, result in blocks of increasing severity (perhaps 6 months, 1 year, indefinite).

I understand this is very harsh, but this is his from the comments above it seems this is his third sock farm, and previous sock farms have resulted in him be desysoped with having stopped him from the habit. As Aphaia said "... a practical method, not only by words, is required to stop him." This is my suggestion for one.

I am still green enough here at WQ to not know the best place to suggest this (probably AN), but familiar enough with wiki's to know that the Village Pump is probably the wrong place. Forgive me. Thenub314 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points you make for the most part deal with what are actually additions of non-controversial quotes to pages under various names, or what I believe is plainly a non-controversial reversal of vandalism — as the image being restored was plainly one of the subject of the page, and even the very few zealous opponents to page images seldom go so far as to object to those. The edit where I briefly thanked a person for their contributions under one name which I had only briefly used, is one I admit it would be better that I had not made, but I hardly think that having made further testimony of gratitude for that person's work under my primary and more established account name is a highly grievous act. I will probably address a few more issues related to such observations soon, but I can agree that this was a slight impropriety, though hardly a malicious or malignant one. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support restriction proposal by Thenub314 (talk · contributions). Very well-done analysis, excellent research. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly cannot object to anyone supporting such a proposal as they believe reasonable, and I believe this contributor's proposal is indeed quite reasonable based upon what he currently knows. I would point out that Cirt has already acted across ALL Wikimedia sites AS IF such a proposal were already established and accepted policy, which it is NOT — thus feeling free to block many of my accounts and deface their pages. As at that time, because of his actions of summary judge, jury, and executioner of sentence after I had entered into an edit dispute with him, I was TOTALLY blocked during this rampage, I was not able to do anything at all about it without technically "evading" a block, which I declined to do, as I was far too busy with other things to enter into much debate at that time anyway. Even were I to eventually accept limits of some number of alternate accounts which others find acceptable, rather than NO specified limits AS has previously been the rights of ALL editors here, there are still several accounts that I would wish to use as clearly appropriate alternate accounts related to some of my identities at other sites, including those where my primary active identity is NOT "Kalki." ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For many reasons I obviously favor their being no restrictions upon anyone, not finding such measures actually all that useful against actual vandals intent on causing disruption — and in such very unusual cases as that of myself it simply criminalizes what is primarily meant not as "egotistical" behavior as I believe many have assumed since its public revelation by others — but to a great extent it was intended as self-abnegating behavior, primarily intended as being anonymously or pseudonymously helpful in many ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support formalizing the editing restrictions as proposed by Thenub314. Several weeks back, in response to an email to the Checkuser mailing list, I reviewed the crosswiki edits made by Kalki and other accounts editing from the same ip addresses as Kalki. And I gave my opinion that the overwhelming majority if not all the edits on these ip addresses were made by Kalki with the primary account and the sock accounts. Looking through the contributions, I found instances where an editor would have the impression that more people than Kalki were involved in a discussion or making edits to a page when it was Kalki editing from multiple accounts. In addition to the most obvious problem of false impressions about consensus than may occur and would need to be monitored to stop abuse, I find that using multiple accounts breaks the norms of wikis where the Community expects to speak with one person through one account. Kalki is being inconsiderate of other people to expect them to keep track of all of the accounts in order to know who that they are speaking to in a discussion. This is especially problematic since Kalki edits cross multiple wikis with all of these accounts about related topics. User contribution are made public so that people can follow the contributions of an user. This is not possible for Kalki without doing a checkuser so this violates the spirit of User account policy cross wiki, including Wikiquote. Given the abuses I found last year, it is not unreasonable to ask Kalki to edit with one account, and if he will not do so voluntarily then to enforce it with a block. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assert that the apparent "abuse" you found, primarily from a few edits I had made years before, were such things as I did not acknowledge as deliberate abuse, and I continue to assert I have never deliberately abused any of my accounts, and for the most part tried to avoid even the appearances of having done so. I post your remarks upon my talk page and my responses to them here for the wider notice of the Wikiquote community. ~ Kalki 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the thrust of Thenub314's proposal. I agree with FloNight that this "breaks the norms of wikis where the Community expects to speak with one person through one account." The purpose of user accounts and user pages is to facilitate cooperation and communication among contributors. Masquerading as a multitude is directly counter to that purpose. Furthermore:
I am particularly concerned by the pattern of using multiple accounts in a manner that creates a misleading impression of popular support for Kalki's editorial practices while, at the same time, consistently and strenuously opposing attempts to elucidate community consensus in guidelines and policies. Whether or not this represents a deliberate attempt to exercise undue influence in the development of community norms, such is its effect. It does not just violate community norms, it undermines them. ~ Ningauble 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal, based on the current and past discussions. While I do believe Kalki has a lot to offer this site, I do not understand why this value cannot be provided using just one account. If these socks were even working completely independently, I might be persuaded that a small number of multiple identities is not harmful. But the fact that many (or maybe even most) of these socks have been used at one time or another in concert disturbs me. And I fail to see how limiting a user to one account truly harms that user or negatively hampers their freedom to contribute to the site as he or she sees fit. ~ UDScott 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two arguments have been presented, (i)"administrative ease and computing resources", and (ii)a moral issue about Kalki's (supposed) deception.
Either there are arguments which have not been presented -- but are known by most people -- or you are a bunch of tribals engaged in the primitive dance around a devil-ridden person. (for only devil-ridden people do things which all tribesmen don't understand.)
Let me remind that a week long block has already expired, and the ip of one of the top contributors Kalki is still blocked over this non-issue. It has gone beyond what is "normal" in the "real world" too. N6n 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misconstrue the points that have been made above. Norms are not moral absolutes, and nobody has said that Kalki is an evil person. Different communities have different norms; but as a purely practical matter all communities need normative processes in order to function as communities, tribal or otherwise. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal for you to consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community

Hi Kalki, I'm asking you to please consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community and other wikis where you edit. From reading your accounts user pages and your edits to articles, I have the impression that you have strong views about issues related to how to achieve goodness in a community. I believe that you honestly feel that your accounts are adding something good to Wikiquote. And while that it may be true that there is an element of goodness in the messages that you post with the accounts, the overall harm that comes from using the accounts overrides any benefit that comes from using them. This is especially true since the primary purpose of an user account pages is to relay pertinent information about the user behind the account. Since the primary purpose of your multiple accounts is to make user pages to aesthetically influence the community, and this is not a recognized reason for an exception to the one account per person that is expected cross wiki, then you need to find other ways to express your views to the community about these matters that are outside the main reason for editing wikiquote. I appeal to you, Kalki, to accept that your use of these many account is causing difficulty on site and agree to stop using them for the greater good of the community. You have loads of goodness to offer the Community with the work that you do. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am again editing from someone else's computer because of blocks I clearly consider to have been excessive and over-reactionary upon my own current IP address.

I had been doing many other things until just recently and just checked in and read your remarks. Your proposals and tone are among the most welcome that have been presented, though I still must disagree with the severity of constraints requested. Rather than persisting in acquiring more accounts without any special constraints, which I still believe should remain the general policy at the Wikimedia sites, I can consider agreeing to specially restricting ONLY myself to a very few of the clearly identified accounts, and perhaps a few others as yet not identified. If I were to create any new accounts, some of which I already have in mind because of names I have used or am intending to use elsewhere on the internet, I could agree to inform a specified checkuser, and to the extent it was deemed necessary or useful, the broader checkuser community could be informed. Also I could inform a checkuser if I knew of anyone using any of the computers at my regular locations of activity creating an account from these as well — clearly identifying these as NOT my own. There have been a few of these in the past, which I have not bothered to specify, because so far as I am aware, most have as yet seldom if ever been used.

Some of the vigor of my past reactions have been because of the ways in which proposals were presented as ultimatums which I held to actually exceed the proper authority of those involved in making them. When I actually bother to react to it beyond silent contempt, I quite often react with intense and principled shows of disdain when anyone presumes to use dictatorial commands and wanton force in socially unwarranted ways against those who appear to be differing in aims of objectives which others cannot immediately understand or appreciate.

I truly already have long had an extensive presence and plans for identities at other sites than those of WIkimedia, and I wish to be able to secure the use of some of these identities at all places, and not have impostors with foul intentions perhaps impersonating, imitating or emulating some of my identities elsewhere, ALL of which are created with motivations to provide positive contributions to various sites in various ways.

A few of the names I would like to use as clearly identified alternate accounts of Kalki are some I have already extensively used, or was planning to so use:

Rumour (talk · contributions)

The Doctor (talk · contributions)

Taliesin (talk · contributions)

Achilles (talk · contributions)

Touchstone (talk · contributions)

I of the Storm (talk · contributions)

There are probably a few more I would like to specify, but I don't have time at present to review the lists nor provide all my reasons for retaining some of these.

There are at least a few other names I use elsewhere I do not yet wish to widely publicize as others which I use or plan to use prominently, but I am willing to inform a checkuser of most of these, or perhaps even openly reveal a few of them within a few months, because with the revelations already made by others the associations would already be easily be made by some.

It is less of an immediate concern to me right now, but as is standard practice to prevent some forms of vandalism I would also like to be able to openly create alternate account names with slight variants of those I have used, but simply have these as dead unused accounts which redirect to the active account with similar names.

As a sincere and deeply devoted advocate of maximal Liberty in all social endeavors, I could openly and willingly agree to such restrictions upon myself — I do NOT wish the general relaxed directives favoring one account or just a few become actual mandates binding anyone else. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to specify that the user pages of the other alternate accounts — even if some of these remained blocked, should not merely have the rather presumptuously applied block notice upon them, but should retain many of the generally positive or humorous messages and quotes I had posted upon them, remaining reminders of the good in humanity, and indicators of much of my original intentions in using them, and not merely what I consider cynically presumptive testimonies to some of the most ill-willed interpretations of things possible. ~ Kalki 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support allowing Kalki to use a limited number of openly identified alternate accounts. For whatever reason, he feels more comfortable contributing under different names at different times. Apparently, this appeals to his sense of altruism, to be making "pseudonymous" contributions, like the person who secretly plants flowers alongside the path. If the consequence is that Kalki is comfortable in making a broader array of positive contributions to the project, then so be it. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Strong oppose Kalki using any other accounts than "Kalki". He lost all possibility of that when instead of using one or at maximum two alternate accounts, he created massive sockfarms of over 200 socks, across sites. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, Kalki was desysoped over the multiple accounts, but I do not recall the community discussing or handing down any further specific prohibition on his use of multiple accounts. I don't see how such a prohibition can be imposed absent discussion and consensus. If there was such a discussion and I missed it, please direct me to it. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that very correct and succinct summation of matters. There has never been any clear community action regarding the issue of multiple accounts, despite the apparent eagerness of a few people to treat those events last year as sanction for blocking my accounts, insisting on the propriety of entirely defacing their userpages, and removing significant remarks and presentations which had been placed upon them for the amusement or edification of the curious. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to point out that after I made disclosures here and elsewhere that an account not previously identified as mine "The Doctor", was indeed mine, it has now been blocked and its quite interesting userpage defaced by Cirt. I implore others to reject this harassment and active effort to deface the contributions I had offered to human understanding of principles of fundamental aspects of human decency, wisdom, and good humour upon those and many other pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, I am sorry that you feel that way, but it is simply not correct that creating and manipulating usage of over 200 socks in a sockfarm operating across multiple sites is not disruptive in nature. I refer you, again, to comments by FloNight about the manner in which Kalki has used the socks, as well as the more recent assessment by Thenub314 (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that creating such a sockfarm is not disruptive. However, we do not impose penalties of this nature without a discussion in which those particular penalties are agreed to by community consensus. Warn first, then step things up to the next solution. Kalki seems willing to limit his activities to a relatively small number of identified accounts, and the community has never prohibited such. BD2412 T 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, after Kalki's misuse of trust in such a manner, it is not wise to allow him to be permitted to have any sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's have a community discussion and see if we can set a policy spelling out such limitations. BD2412 T 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is in the best interest of the community for users to have time to talk through the situation and come to a community decision. I looked into the situation and gave my opinion, but I'm very happy to listen to the opinion of other people including Kalki in order to see if we can work out a way to keep Kalki as a productive editor and also enforce a sensible policy about use of multiple accounts. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank everyone who is taking time to consider the issues involved here in a truly open and considerate way, and does not seek to pass harsh sentence upon what remains activity of largely undetermined character. I had hoped to make a few more expositions of significant things already, but am being delayed by my current situation of being busy with many other things and being impelled into attempting many of my more extensive communications lately from another person's computer. I know I might easily and in a few minutes change the IP address on my own — as many of the more determined vandals would have already done — or not even have any reason to do, because they would never have created so extensive a profile operating from their genuine home IP address. I however am NOT some malicious vandal intent on disruption, and I do tend to not disguise or change my home IP as casually others would. I do hope to address many issues far more thoroughly within the next few days, and am confident of being able to do so even more extensively within the next few weeks, and am in no hurry for immediate resolution or respite from some of my difficulties. I am quite willing to bear many burdens for the sake of liberty, justice and such true unity of purpose as can only arise out of honest and honorable communications, and I hope I shall soon be able to indicate vigorously that this is precisely what I have been engaged in, in many diverse ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am less sanguine than Kalki about the IP blocks. If any editing restrictions are appropriate, requiring Kalki to edit only while away from home is certainly not a suitable one. It merely imposes an inconvenience that has no relevance to on-wiki conduct. While some might think it appropriate in the interim, until some agreement is reached, I think it is shameful to use punitive harassment as a way to force an accommodation. ~ Ningauble 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sensible thing to do at this point is to open a general discussion on its own page in order to set specific policy limitations on the use of multiple accounts, and to address Kalki's request to be allowed to use a small number of identified alternate accounts in accordance with the policy we set. In the interim, I think Kalki should be allowed to edit from the one account, but I don't think we should punish him prospectively for past acts that were not specifically addressed by a policy of this project. Does anyone want to initiate such a discussion? BD2412 T 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems overly unnecessary and bureaucratic. Above, here on this page, right now, we already have consensus to support the proposed restriction limiting Kalki to one account: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has actually just made me laugh out loud with his ironic objection to "overly unnecessary and bureaucratic" behavior. UP to this point, I actually have been less constrained by blocks upon me than my involvement with real-life activities which have kept me busy, and have barely had time to check in here at all on my home computer, not finding much reason to do so without having the capacity to edit from it — but my brief checking in at present from that of someone else has indicated to me a much broader scope of issues than thus far covered, and I intend to address so many of these as I can as vigorously as I can when I have the time to do so. I truly might have but little of that for about a week — so I would request any final decisions upon some matters be delayed until I have time to present more extensive arguments and expositions of facts that are pertinent to these matters — and some of these may indeed take me about a week to sufficiently address, and much information I would like to present I probably won't have time to actually locate, as some material related to details of past events might be on hard-drives not immediately accessible to me at present. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, you are really not helping yourself here. Cirt, we need to estblish a policy and stick to it. We can not punish people ex post facto for things that were not violative of Wikiquote policy at the time they were done. I grant that it can be problematic for even a good contributor to have an excessive number of accounts, but we should structure limitations that permit contributors to contribute - even if they are quirky about how they do it - and only levy prohibitions to the extent that specific harm to the project can be shown. BD2412 T 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, the community can set restrictions on individual users based on presented evidence as proposed and impose a community-based sanction, and the community is in fact doing so, above, at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that policy can be made reactively on a case-by-case basis. Courts often tease out the law in that way, although they usually do it prospectively, establishing the policy in one case and announcing that the defendant will not be subjected to this new rule, but future violators will. I suppose I've said all I can on the issue at this juncture. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a no brainer. I support restricting Kalki to one account. Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to User:Cirt's usage of the term 'sockpuppeteer'

In 'sockpuppeteer Kalki' the first term is an epithet. Does Cirt not understand this? I suspect this this is an intentional abuse, given that I pointed it out once before.

Cirt should kindly stop doing this. If (s)he cannot use the word 'Kalki' without an epithet, I suggest he use 'one of the top contributors' . Once again: admins have a standard to follow. Cirt has failed to live up to it -- many times -- in the past two weeks. 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)N6n

Kalki is a sockpuppeteer. This has been confirmed by multiple different Checkusers from multiple different checks across multiple different Wikimedia projects. This is not an "epithet", and attempting to label it as such in comments by N6n (talk · contributions) is merely a silly way to try to divert attention away from the ongoing socking by Kalki (talk · contributions). It is merely a statement of fact. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see, Kalki's comment (AN) on 'sockpuppeteer Kalki'. Cirt has used the phrases "sockpuppeteer Kalki"/"the sockpuppeteer (Kalki)" eight times in between my two comments on this issue. N6n 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an immediate reduction of block severity

I still oppose Cirt's persistent efforts to imply that I have done anything innately unethical in using alternate accounts, but at this point I certainly have no intentions of using any others until a few issues are more definitely clarified — especially after having even those accounts which I in good faith openly revealed to have been mine rapidly blocked, even though the appropriateness of any such constraints or blocks was something still under debate here.

I do wish to point out that though the triggering events on past complaints of my use of alternate accounts use were of possibly benign nature, here it was clearly precipitated by a highly oppressive reaction to my efforts to OPENLY dispute, as Kalki, on simple editorial issues where Cirt seemed to believe his judgment and decisions should simply be accepted without question or dissent. The assaults on my character and integrity because I dared to challenge such assumptions have magnified to a degree where he seems smugly satisfied with the damages he has already done to my abilities and apparent reputation at this time. I remain quite calmly confident that no matter what damages might persist here or elsewhere because of his quite aggressive efforts, the integrity and value of my views and aims will become much clearer in coming months, and some of the tragically arrogant repressions of the present time will be exposed as not merely ridiculous but profoundly contemptible.

After being prevented from much participation here lately because of my own real-world activities as well as the excessive blocks upon my accounts and IPs, and as I expect to have more time available to work here sometime within the next few days than I have in the last week or so, I am requesting that the current block on my home IP be reduced in its effects to preventing the creation of new accounts, as IS the status of the current block on the IP I am presently using at someone else's computer, which also was placed by Cirt. To imply that there is any clear need for a stronger block than this one on my home IP seems to me an attempt to merely further punish and silence me — an intention which seems abundantly clear based upon much of Cirt's recent activity. I wish to have the opportunity to openly discuss and debate much that has recently occurred, much of which was done while I was effectively blocked from participation and activity in many ways I hold to be both overly severe and unjust, as well as resume constructive editing here to a greater degree than I have recently been able to in my recent brief bouts on someone else's computer. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple subsections dealing with this, above, on this very page. There is no need to start another new subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki has made a formal request for specific action. Although there have been previous remarks about the blocks you placed, it is entirely appropriate to devote an editable section to the affected user's appeal. ~ Ningauble 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He made a similar request, above. This is a dup sect. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support permitting Kalki to edit from home, or any other convenient location. As discussed elsewhere on this page and at the Administrator's Noticeboard, I believe it is inappropriate to place restrictions on which IP connections may be used to access the registered User:Kalki account as long as the user is not barred from editing. Furthermore, continuing to block IP addresses from being used to edit while logged into this account, as has been done even after this appeal was made, gives the appearance of attempting to circumvent the community's deliberation of Kalki restriction proposal above, by preventing use of the account whether it is blocked or not. ~ Ningauble 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Kalki has to date and repeatedly refused to self-restrict himself to not using more than one account. Kalki has been confirmed by checkuser to have built sockfarms, in some cases in excess of 200 socks, across multiple Wikimedia sites. Ability to assume good faith is stretched to the breaking point, when the user in question repeatedly refuses to self-restrict to usage of one account, particularly after the history of socking. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport allowing Kalki to edit as Kalki from anywhere. He has expressly agreed to this restriction below, and I see no discussion concluding that Kalki should be banned, or prohibited from editing under that one username from his home computer. BD2412 T 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a short time to edit from this current location. I don't even have my home IP available right now to note it, and don't wish to publicly note it any more prominently than necessary — but if it is uncertain to any admins involved it can requested of me, I will email the relevant IP to anyone who wishes to reduce the block so that I can actually communicate more freely here. I have agreed to edit pages here ONLY as Kalki while certain issues are being discussed and resolved.

Cirt has elsewhere briefly asserted "Kalki has refused such an agreement." That is actually an irrefutably true statement — unlike some Cirt has made which seem true or irrefutable only to the casual observer — yet it obscures and hides much of immense relevance to the issue, as many of Cirts deliberate actions and statements have done. I actual refused one such agreement some time ago of much greater severity as dictated by Cirt, which demanded I totally bow down to his perverse will to dominate and control much of my behavior on terms set down entirely by him. In what relatively minor attention I have payed to much of his behavior, I have observed such tendencies being manifest in ways I consider truly vile. His above statement that "Kalki has to date and repeatedly refused to self-restrict himself to not using more than one account" is patently FALSE, and clearly intended to hide and obscure the FACT that I AM agreeing, and already earlier HAD agreed to restrict myself to one account while many issues involved are being discussed and resolved.

Cirt regularly and curtly obscures, hides, minimizes the prominence and denies many facts about many things in such expressions as he cares to make — and I am well aware of such strategies occurring at many levels. I confess that I myself quite skillfully have employed similar strategies to defend human liberties rather than oppress them, and without any such personally malicious intentions as he seems to abundantly manifest and demonstrate. Though I recognize that some might validly doubt or question my assertions at the present state of affairs, I remain resolute in not wishing to do any more harm than necessary to anyone — not even this dictatorial editor who has thus far in the past couple weeks succeeded in doing much harm to many of my more important abilities here — and who obviously seems intent on doing more — and who I believe has already attempted to do such things as I believe would result in severe damages to the Wikiquote project, and to a great extent the wikimedia community itself in ways not immediately apparent. He seems intent on doing whatever he can to silent and obscure and remove MUCH of what I have to say, and I have stated that I simply wish the opportunity to simply operate as Kalki — so that I can more effectively expose the magnitude of defamation and desecration of valued principles and practices that have been exhibited in many of his actions and attitudes, thus far with apparent impunity. I call upon any administrators who have the integrity to see the justice of my plea to soon reduce the severity of my block, so that I actually can communicate without such further extremes of inconvenience as some have seemed willing to viciously inflict or casually support. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BD2412 (talk · contributions), while I agree with your comment [12] that Kalki should edit from the one account, Kalki, I emphasize that blocks should remain in place to prevent the main account from engaging in socking and creating massive sockfarms. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this helps. Clearly, Kalki is still able to edit. If he can do that, he can sock and create accounts wherever he is, and we would have no way to know. At least if he's editing from his home computer, we could match up any socks editing from the same place. BD2412 T 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With regards to his editing from home - I suggest we follow this suggestion from Tiptoety (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear, in that post Tiptoety wrote, in part, "Being that Kalki's main account is not blocked, I would support editing the block settings to remove the autoblocks that are preventing her from editing." Does this mean that you no longer oppose granting Kalki's appeal, and now support the broader action of removing the IP autoblocks altogether? ~ Ningauble 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it does not, as Kalki has refused to restrict himself to one account. -- Cirt (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, then what do you mean by suggesting we follow Tiptoety's suggestion? What part of his suggestion are you recommending for action? ~ Ningauble 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Kalki has agreed to restrict himself to one account "while certain issues are being discussed and resolved". I presume this to mean the multi-account issues at the heart of this conflict. If that is what Kalki means by "certain issues", then he has not actually refused to restrict himself to one account, but has merely made this restriction conditional on the outcome of the discussion. In that case, it seems that we should let Kalki edit from his home IP, at least until those issues are resolved. BD2412 T 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Kalki's statement regarding use of one account was not really clear or unambiguous enough. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. That's why I said "if that is what Kalki means". Up to him to clarify. BD2412 T 20:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We are in agreement that we both want clarification from Kalki about being restricted to use of one account only. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat above this section is posted:

"Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept this as current consensus of opinion, and abide by it as an indication of the current situation here; but I also assert I have the right to post many of the reasons I continue to dissent on the ultimate of propriety of such restrictions, and eventually post arguments as to why they should eventually be removed. The current blocks which I assert were improperly and needlessly placed on my home IP restricting my access to editing, have prevented me from engaging in recent discussions and activity so fully and vigorously as I would wish, but as a decision has at this point been determined, I am willing to agree to restrict my editing to a single account, until such time as I can convince the community that such extreme restrictions should be removed or reduced. Such activity on my part is not actually one my top priorities at the present time, and many other things currently impel my attention.

Presentations of my views on more general procedures and activities here is of increasing interest to me, as well as the general contribution of adding more material to the project, as Kalki — thus I hope that all will agree that current blocks that have been placed on my home IP are excessive and should be immediately removed. I am not sure of many of the technicalities of the matter — because I am NOT someone who is inclined to seek out many of the technicalities by which it is possible to suppress, restrict or needlessly constrain other people's activities, nor succeed in violating or ignoring many of their rights, but the current blocks, so far as I can perceive were placed on a entire ranges of IPs available from a commercial Time Warner Road Runner server, thus apparently affecting thousands of other IPs other than my own, simply to prevent a few of those available to me from editing here. I discovered this only a couple days ago, when running out of time available to me over the weekend I simply decided to change my IP from home, so that I could edit from there — as I had already clearly agreed to ONLY AS Kalki — and discovered the block was far more extensive than I had thought, or can concede to be in any way proper. Thus was I restrained from doing much I had wished to get done here — and simply went on to doing such things as were of far greater importance than dealing with the inanities and outrages which have been occurring here, some of which I have but barely touched upon in my discussions. There were other means available to get around such excessive activities aimed at constraining mine, but I had little interest in resorting to any of these, and went on to other more important matters.

Even addressing some of the damages that CIrt has apparently been motivated to inflict upon my editorial privileges here and on other wikimedia projects, through accusations and assertions which extremely distort and defame my actual editing activities are not a top priority, but I do eventually plan to address many issues with an extensive account of many things at User:Kalki/Chronology, among my own user pages — a chronology of my activities here and elsewhere, and others responses to them, whether positive, negative or non-committal — including very definite and extensively revelatory commentary upon many of my motives and considerations for disclosing or not disclosing much information in the past. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kalki now has IP-block-exempt. This means Kalki can edit with his account, even if IPs are blocked. This will obviously be revoked if Kalki is blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Michael Laitman

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 Amazon.com 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_U.S._citizens

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) http://books.google.com/books?id=4U3pAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22United+State%22+adjective&output=text&source=gbs_navlinks_s 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 http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/word.html retrieved 11/23/2010

Spell out United States as a noun; use U.S. as an adjective.
Political Science Quarterly Style Guide http://www.psqonline.org/01psq_style_guide.pdf 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 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_proper_adjectives_for_states 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 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89298.pdf 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 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 November 2010.

What you want to do is to pipe the link, like this: [[w:Henri Estienne|Henri Estienne]]. This will appear as Henri Estienne. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use an "empty pipe" like this: [[w:Henri Estienne|]] if the name does not include certain punctuation symbols that confuse the system. ~ Ningauble 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!

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; {| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px" |class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #FCFCCC; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

|} & nbsp;

& nbsp; {| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px" |class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #FFE7CC; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

|} & 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:

creating a small configuration file
append two statements to LocalSettings.php
adding the same CSS as above.

—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>
<div class="misattributed">
    previous misattributed content
</div>

versus

{| 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
|}
&nbsp; 
{| 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:

{{Misattributed begin}} & {{Misattributed end}}
{{Disputed begin}} & {{Disputed end}}

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 207.224.122.207 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]

Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations

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]

Wikiquote-l

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]