Wikiquote:Village pump archive 32

	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; ;

Inaugural Deletion review

Although some deletions have been reviewed informally at the Village pump in the past, today marks the first time the Wikiquote:Deletion review page has been used for a formal appeal. Folks who are interested in this type of activity may want to watchlist the page, now that it has been inaugurated. ~ Ningauble 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is WikiQuote the "right place" for this idea...

Hey, long time WP editor, first time to WQ. I would like to find a place where I can post book notes from books that I have read in a way that would be searchable. When I read a book (at least, a non-fiction business book) I make notes along the way with "page" and "idea" that I find that hits me profoundly (is that a word?). I end up with lots of word documents that are essentially tables of Page and Idea for the books I read.

For example, I've got notes complied from multiple books by the same author--would a "book review" type page work here or should I try another wiki?--Paulmcdonald 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an idea, at least as I understand it at this point, does not seem entirely appropriate for a page in article space here, but one could make sub-pages of one's own user page, if one thinks such an idea might be useful to others. I have long had ideas where user pages could be used to provide personal compendiums of quotes, and that eventually there might be some pages within the article space where those which people find most popular or useful could be mentioned and linked to, listed under various category listings, ranging from simple user-names, to general subjects or themes of such pages.

Thus far, I have been reluctant to present or promote such ideas, because far greater concern with more basic matters, including hostilities to the use of multiple accounts under which I might have eventually provided many diverse ideas to others, using such presentation techniques, and preferably under many pseudonyms, to optimize some ideas in different ways, without being too bound by the presumptions and prejudices of others as to what I might be intending, or what my motives might be. (I have long recognized that those with the most dark and foul motives themselves will very often be most inclined to ascribe such motives to others, no matter what they do, or for what reasons, and had sought to avoid having too many people very aware of the wide diversity of my own involvement and interest in many things.) I am a profoundly intense advocate of principles which assert that people should be free to investigate and explore many diverse ideas, and be free to present the ideas of others and themselves in many diverse ways, without overbearing restrictions placed upon them by those presumptive that only a very narrow range of interests, concerns, or presentation methods, such as those they themselves prefer, should be available to people. I have begun to indicate such tendencies to promote diversity and liberty and many of my reasons for them on my own user pages, as well as addressing many Wikiquote-specific matters more thoroughly upon them, and there are many more ideas I eventually wish to present more thoroughly, to the extent I have the time and opportunity:

Kalki · † · iota · index · imago · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box
… Ω …

In the pallete of links to my own talk pages which I have rendered above, I am creating a link to a new user-sub-page which I have had in mind for some time, where I intend to deal more extensively with issues of styles of presentation and actions as apply to wikiquote pages and Wikiquote activities: "iota" created simply by making use of a link in the form of [[User:Kalki/iota|iota]] . ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

I agree with Kalki that this is not the right project for posting "Book reviews" or reading notes. Wikiquote is for quotations. Quite a few folks at Blogger blog about their reading, but I am not sure if that is the sort of venue you want to use.

I do not agree with Kalki's perspective on user pages. Their purpose is to facilitate communication among participants in the project, not to serve as a substitute for Myspace or Wordpress, or to host content unrelated to the activity of building a compendium of quotations. A number of folks have created user pages for other purposes, some of whom have done so as their only activity at Wikiquote, and I think we should be cleaning the pages up. ~ Ningauble 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tosh

The Daniel Tosh article has attracted a lot of vandalism, and I have temporarily semi-protected it again. If any responsible editors are familiar with the quoted works, some review and cleanup would be helpful. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've installed wikt:fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-searchbox.js from wikt:pl:MediaWiki:Gadget-searchbox.js. It adds the text treatment functions: "go to line n°", "change the capitalization", "search and replace" (eventually "replace all") and sort alphabetically. JackPotte 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tool Missing On "New" Toolbar....

It is with great consternation that the tool bar on Wikiquote has been changed... There is no link button to Wikipedia, and the links must be put in by hand , which is very slow and inconvenient. I hope that this will be addressed forthwith, like yesterday.... Any attempt to dumb-down this great project is very disheartening and should be abandoned. --Oracleofottawa 02:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, because I never used the editing toolbars, old or new. Did the feature you are looking for disappear in the "version 1.17" release about a week ago, or in the "vector/usability" initiative almost a year ago when the toolbar was redesigned? ~ Ningauble 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the latest change. I am not sure it is known as a "tool bar" that is just what I call it. What I know for sure is that the one before this new one had an icon for a external link to Wikipedia... The new one I can not seem to locate it, even after carefully going through everything in the new lay-out. I have found that you can live without it. Like learning to live without really good booze and Canadian tobacco, it can be done but you would just rather not....--Oracleofottawa 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page updating often broken in new software

Since the latest software was installed, the pages have often not updated properly after edits, and the page purging function of the optional clock in the personal toolbar has also been broken. I often have to make several edits to a page simply to prompt it to display properly. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also experienced some of these problems with the v1.17 update, but not so much in the past week or two. A major feature of the new version is a "resource loader" that compresses and caches more reusable content, such as css and javascript, in the user's browser. There appear to be a couple lingering issues with the resource loader that cause these failures:

During times of heavy load on the servers, server-side caching gets behind and whole chunks of data, including css and javascript particularly, get dropped while processing updates or rendering pages. This causes all kinds of weirdness to happen. Ironically, the process of rolling out the version upgrade itself puts a heavy load in the servers, making it the proximate cause of its own failure.
Although Wikiquote was one of a handful of beta-like test sites (lucky us) and had more or less stabilized, subsequent attempts to roll out the upgrade at Wikipedia put a heavy load on the servers and caused renewed outbreaks of weirdness here. I am not experiencing this very frequently anymore, though I had a page-delete action fail, apparently for this reason, a couple days ago. There is not much we can do about this except wait for the developers to sort it out.
It is known that much of the preexisting javascript is not compatible with v1.17. The developers rewrote affected scripts that are part of the "standard" wmf installation, but took the approach that if a local wiki has any customized scripts, and gadgets in particular, it is up to the local wiki to upgrade its own javascript. For smaller wikis like ours, that do not have an army or programmers standing by, this is a bit of a kick in the head.
As an interim measure, I suggest turning off your gadgets to see if that stops the problem. (Clear your browser cache to be sure they are really off.) If you want, you could turn them on one at a time to see which ones may be broken. Since most of our gadgets were originally copied from Wikipedia, you could enquire whether the problems have been seen and fixed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Someone there may be willing to help with porting upgrades cross-wiki.

I don't use any gadgets myself, so that probably explains why you are seeing more problems that I am. It is my impression that once the javascript runs off track it can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated cascading failures. ~ Ningauble 15:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed the problem of not having the pages update. Once I make edits, I often have to click edit again and then Save page to see my original edits appear. Very much a pain. ~ UDScott 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details for Bugzilla report

I am going to ping Bugzilla about this. But first, it would be very helpful if everyone who is seeing this bug ("UPDATED VERSION OF PAGE NOT DISPLAYED WHEN SAVING EDIT") would answer these questions:

Please confirm that the problem you are seeing is "not displayed when saved" rather than (or separate from) "not saved."
Specifically: When you re-edit the page, are the changes you made already included in the edit box? Or, if you click the Page tab does the updated page appear? (This is what I am experiencing.)
What browser & version are you using? (I am using IE7.)
Do you have any gadgets enabled, or any custom javascript in your userspace? (I do not.)
How often does it happen, approximately? (When saving a new page, about 20% of the time I get the "Wikiquote does not have an article with this exact name" screen.)

Thanks! ~ Ningauble 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

It is the former, rather than the latter - I do see my edits in the edit box, but not on the saved page at first.
I am using Firefox v3.6.15.
I have all the gadgets enabled.
It happens about 70% of the time (every now and then it works OK) when I am editing, but not when I delete or prod a page or other such tasks.

Thanks. ~ UDScott 15:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Further respone:[reply]

Not displayed — rather than not saved — the changes are in the new edit boxes, but there have been cases when they haven't shown up even after another 1 or 2 edits.
I usually now use Safari 5.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.6.6 when I edit, and have not used other browsers to edit recently.
I currently have all the Gadgets on except "Enhanced Interwikis", "Recent Changes box", and "UserMessages".
It probably happens about 70% - 90% of the time, including many but probably not most of the times when I create a new page.

I have recently been reopening the page and simply deleting the last return space in the displayed edit box, and this seems to prompt a purge of the page without a further edit showing up in the edit history. I do this because the clock gadget's purge function no longer works in this version. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Status: I reported this as bug 27964, which was redirected to bug 27891 because someone else reported it three days earlier. The developers are looking into it, but have not gotten past the head-scratching stage. (Part of the challenge in figuring out what went wrong lies in not knowing why it worked right in the first place, because it appears it shouldn't have.) ~ Ningauble 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Bug 27891 is reported FIXED and deployed. However, Tim Starling notes "There's probably a network issue which still needs to be figured out, but this bug should happen very rarely now. Please reopen if you see it on more than one in every 10k edits." So if anybody sees this happen more than once henceforth, please give a shout. ~ Ningauble 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redone. This was still happening with new pages occasionally, so a further patch has been applied at bug 27891. ~ Ningauble 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

donate japan disaster

Help support the great nation of Japan from the earthquake by doing a small donation!

License for Wikiquote logo is disputed

Hi! You may find this discussion interessting Commons:Village_pump#Wikipedia_screenshots_and_licensing_issues. There is a discussion about the logo somewhere in the discussion. Please help find the right place for this notice. --MGA73 09:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the argument you seem to be making specifically in regard to this and the Wikibooks logo is that they are composed of simple geometric shapes "too simple" to be copyrighted. When such arguments are successfully applied to the works of Piet Mondrian, or various logos like those of Nike, I might begin to seriously fret about such issues. Many incidents of extending restrictions of copyright laws and promoting hysteria about copyright concerns in recent years are rather strained and short-sighted. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Nike swoosh subject to copyright? I would tend to doubt it, but the legal regime at issue should be trademark, not copyright. There is no question that the Wikiquote logo can receive trademark protection, as can the Nike swoosh and the golden arches. BD2412 T 01:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pornspam

Why is there this gif http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Ejaculate_animated_1.gif on a very long list of pages? Doesn't seem to be an obvious way of removing it. Extremely annoying. Stevebritgimp 05:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on its talk page, the image used is actually on the Wikimedia commons which provides images for all WIkimedia projects. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link

I request to some sysop to protect the Template:Link: someone change the code and add an ejaculate image to the template, this affect to a wide of templates and articles; I correct the problem, but I think that is necessary protect the template. Sorry for my bad english and if this isn't the proper place to request this.LyingB 05:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal posted the image to two of the unprotected templates. I have removed it from one and LyingB had removed it from the other one earlier. These will have to be protected to prevent further such behavior. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote in literature (2)

More samples of what people are saying about us:

Rank irrelevance

Colin P. Williams, in Explorations in Quantum Computing (Springer, 2010), p. 210, notes the low relevance rankings assigned to some Wikiquote pages by a search engine when looking for "quantum computing." (e.g., Richard Feynman: 2.2%, God: 0.9%) His observation that "Wikiquote has it about right" would be flattering if its relevance were not exactly zero: it is not Wikiquote that assigns these rankings.

Fountain of wisdom

In a review of the film Sucker Punch (National Post, 24 March 2011), columnist Chris Knight remarks about a character called Wise Man: "Well, not that wise; he gets all his best lines from Wikiquote." Well, for what it's worth, we are glad to be of service.
—
~ Reported by ~ Ningauble 14:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki adminship request

I have submitted a request for adminship status at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki. Your consideration is welcome. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Is Wikiquote held by catholic fanatics? I can't find why the Today Quote has been introduced with so much christ pictures. And this is quite reccurent in this site: twice or three times a week, the main page is invaded by religious pictures, from the moment the quote is quite mysterious or spiritual. --Antichrist 16:16, 22 April 2011 (GMT+2)

I don't know think it is held by anyone really. I might agree the sheer volume of pictures is a bit much, and perhaps a bit unrelated to the current quote. But a religious quote on "good friday" today with a picture (and something corresponding on sundy) would not be terribly surprising even for the most atheistic of quote sites. There are simply lots of quotes about religion. Also quotes by Darwin on his birthday don't particularly mean that the site supports evolution. The site tries to remain unbiased, it is simply a notable day and we try to do something accordingly (and we try to choose an appropriate quote every day as it turns out). Thenub314 15:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enable WQ namespace

Hello everybody. I discovered that the WQ: namespace isn't enabled here. Perhaps it would be a good idea to enable it and add it as an alias for the Wikiquote: namespace? If the community agrees, then a report should be filed at Bugzilla. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if folks want to do this, but I don't see a pressing need because, compared to Wikipedia, we have very few project pages (apart from discussion archives) and most are not very well developed or are very out of date. ~ Ningauble 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea to me. I had tried to use the link several times out of habit from other wiki's.Thenub314 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Hoodwinked Too

Hoodwinked Too

Hoodwinked Too recently came out, and there is no page for it. I would like to suggest one.24.5.239.44 14:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Library editathon with focus on English literature and Drama

The British Library is planning an editathon on 4 June with a specific focus on English and Drama and they will be providing access to rare archive material on a variety of authors and playwrights. Wikiquote editors may be interested in attending and using access to this material to verify quotes and find new ones, as well as potentially create new pages on authors (and work with people from other Wikimedia projects).

If you can make it to the British Library in London and participate in the editathon, please see the page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. If you've got any questions about it, please ask User:Fæ or post about it on the talk page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. Please also tell editors you think might be interested in participating. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds great. Thanks for thinking of us. Unfortunately, I will not be able to cross the pond to attend. ~ Ningauble 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VOTES on major issues

This is something I posted at Talk:Doctor Who, but believe should also be presented here:

In keeping with a sense of NEED of a repudiation of the general idea of the DRAFT policy of Wikiquote:Fictional characters I propose that it actually be VOTED upon within the next couple of months — and to a great extent REJECTED — as an example of the type of OVERLY restrictive and exclusionist policies that have been crafted by increasingly presumptuous cliques which I believe have been driving people away from contributing to this and other wikimedia wikis — far more than the random ridiculous and contemptible acts of vandalism which they might encounter have. I would also propose that the existing Wikiquote:Limits on quotations policy page, which I consider ridiculous and contemptibly overly restrictive ALSO be addressed. I would propose at LEAST a MONTH for people to provide arguments on the issues and perhaps alternative drafts PRIOR to VOTING — and then a period of at least a MONTH for the voting itself. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no issue with holding discussions on these policies, I must remind you that the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations did not result out of thin air, but instead was the result of many discussions, such as what you suggest is now needed. Again, fine with me if we should discuss it again. I have no problem with further discussion - and if the result is a reversal or change to the policy, then so be it. I would then act to enforce an altered policy. What I do reject, Kalki, is your continued insistence on labeling anyone who acts to apply policies as belonging to some cabal of people trying to manipulate or restrict others in some nefarious plot. Why do you continue to inflate smaller matters into such huge issues, such that constructive discussion is hampered from the very beginning? It appears that you are incapable of rational and calm discussion, but instead rely on attacks to further your arguments. And remember, I am one that has fairly steadfastly argued in your defense in most circumstances. But I find responding to your screeds increasingly tiresome. In any case, let the discussions begin - and I welcome the results, be they what they may. ~ UDScott 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No humanly devised rules ever arise out of thin air — they arise with human will and intentions, and usually many very good ones, and yet to the extent they constrain or control the behaviors of others more than ethical or legal considerations clearly demand I have a very strong inclination to object to them. I do not doubt that those who propose and support them are usually sincere in thinking them for the best, even when I cannot agree. Generally there are cliques of like-minded people who support each other in proposing, producing and promoting such rules and I nowhere accuse anyone of being innately nefarious or sinister in doing this, though I have little doubt such inclinations also can exist among many people. What I plainly objected to is "OVERLY restrictive and exclusionist policies that have been crafted by increasingly presumptuous cliques" — which I believe is an entirely reasonable objection — and I imply that both the current and proposed standards are examples of these.

I also state that cliques have developed which have been very presumptuous, and I believe that this is a clearly provable fact in many regards. I nowhere go so far as to imply they are innately vile, or use the term "cabal" — and if I ever do so it will probably be with some satirical rather than serious intent. You state you object to my "continued insistence on labeling anyone who acts to apply policies as belonging to some cabal of people trying to manipulate or restrict others in some nefarious plot" — I am objecting to the policies — I am certainly NOT attempting to imply that anyone who has supported them is innately irrational or unreasonable or nefarious — and you are definitely being overly presumptive when you imply that I do. You then go on to clearly state that "It appears that you are incapable of rational and calm discussion, but instead rely on attacks to further your arguments." There of course might be some paradox here of which I am unaware which does not make your statement innately hypocritical in using such personally derisive arguments. I do NOT go so far as to state you are being extraordinarily or viciously hypocritical — I will let the rational capacities of people examine that matter. To what might appear to be my detriment I will defend you and state that I believe MOST people are quite often mildly and inadvertently hypocritical — but I still believe MOST people are innately inclined to that which is truly valid and correct when matters are sufficiently pointed out to them — and when they are not inhibited from being honest and speaking with candor about what their own genuine opinions are. This is what I intend to always do, and invite you to do the same, as a fellow rational and emotional being.

Before going on to a few other things elsewhere I will note that my comments here and at Talk:Doctor Who were in reaction to a proposal for what was clearly labelled a DRAFT of policy FORBIDDING pages on fictional pages being APPLIED to pages as if it had been voted on and generally ACCEPTED as policy merely because it has sat in some obscure page of the wiki receiving no more attention from most people than I feel it deserves from anyone:

In keeping with the general idea of Wikiquote:Fictional characters, I suggest merging articles on the doctor's companions/sidekicks (Rose Tyler, Jack Harkness, Donna Noble, Martha Jones, River Song, Amy Pond, & Rory Williams) into the articles on the quoted works, i.e. the Nth Doctor articles. ~ Ningauble 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that despite the objections of some there is clear utility to having fictional characters of popular shows or general works have their own pages — like many other notable options they were allowed at the beginning of this wiki and have not yet been clearly and irrevocably forbidden by any developed policies of which I am aware — and to the extent that any such pages may have been removed in deference to this DRAFT of policy when there has been interest in having them and maintaining them, I consider it regrettable.

There is much more I am inclined to discuss — but know that there are many other matters with much greater importance for me to presently attend to. I know that people can disagree on many things and remain civil and remain allies upon issues that matter most, but I am not actually so shallow or unintelligent as to treat the labeling of me unreasonable (primarily because others cannot yet see what forms of reason and rationale I am applying to many matters), as entirely civil or fair. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent my words. I did not propose to act as if anything had been voted on. I said "in keeping with the general idea" because I think it is generally a good idea.

That others have endorsed the idea is also a consideration, but my main reason for citing the page is because, in drafting it, others have spared me the effort of an ex novo explanation of the idea, not because of any intention to pretend or to decieve. ~ Ningauble 15:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really was not trying to insinuate that you were deliberately pretending or intending to deceive anyone in this matter — but I did believe the manner of presentation was somewhat deceiving all the same. I just happened to check in, as not expecting to be able to edit had rather reduced my interest in things here — and I am VERY grateful for your analysis of the situation of the recent improper block of my account, which now, after a brief period of rather major frustrations, permits me to edit again. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to the specific case of Fictional Characters, I do think they should not have their own separate pages. A page for the fictional work seems appropriate to me. Though I could possibly see using subpages if a single page was getting too long. Thenub314 15:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having contributed a great deal to that draft and to the discussions realting to it, I stand by it. We should not use this project as a vehicle to confuse fictional characters with the actual authors who put words in their mouths, and we should not have pages treating fictional characters as a topic separate from the work from which they originate unless their has been a lot said about the character itself. Consider Tom Sawyer, for example. Although this character was created and written by Mark Twain, he is also used in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Should a page on Tom Sawyer include quotes from that work? From other works of speculative fiction, less noted but still published? BD2412 T 16:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the work of others on this project, and fully encourage them to use and maintain their rights to strongly and vigorously voice their opinions and their reasons for them, though they might be strongly opposed to mine — and especially when they are sincerely so. I have always realized that I might well end up a minority here in many regards — but I continue to support freedoms rather than fixations on fixities and "fixes" that I sincerely believe are not conducive to proper freedoms or the development of this project.

Before I proceed I wish to make as clear as possible that I generally and genuinely LIKE people. It is because I LIKE people and recognize the constant NEED to protect and defend their liberties that I often become so clearly and sincerely irate when proposals to reduce those are made or developed, at ANY level of human interactions. I can sincerely declare invectives against the evident moods and minds of others, at such points AND can fully accept them doing the same towards my moods and mind — and certainly would NOT seek to have any rules made or imposed against the sincere declarations of opinions no matter how contrary they might be to my own.

I have long regarded the production or promotion of rules that are not absolutely necessary for the health or progress of some endeavor as what I refer to as quite unhealthy rule-mongering. I recognize that ANY creation of formulations and recipes of what is considered proper and improper can be dangerous, and I tend to believe they always go too far when they reach to become arrogantly absolutist rather than humbly and courageously provisional.

Though I personally am not strongly inclined to create or develop one at this point, where is the actual HARM in having a page about Tom Sawyer — which could indeed include some notable quotes form derivative works? There might be some replication of quotes ABOUT Sawyer or derivatives of him, with quotes ABOUT the work or derivative works, but I do not perceive this to be innately harmful either. Though there usually is not a need, and such replications can be excessive, I don't actually consider some replication of quotes on a page for films, one in the dialogue section and one in the character section as necessarily harmful or detrimental, though I recognize others have.

I believe interest and involvement in developing the wikimedia projects would be fostered by a return to principles promoting freedoms and less insistence and reliance upon the habits and specialties of rule-mongers. I recognize that there are times when MOST people, including myself, however reluctantly DO need to go about devising rules and promoting them — and to that extent NONE of us are entirely free from being rule-mongers.

Having dealt with a few issues of immediately of concern of the wiki, I have touched upon some of my own core beliefs and will now endeavor to make clearer some of the perceptions, conceptual positions and dispositions from which I myself generally work and fully expect and accept that in my habit of being "verbose" in trying to indicate complexities and intricacies which usually involve far more considerations than I can clearly state, I will leave some people, at least for a time, even more severely confused by my attempts. So it goes…

Though I STRONGLY sympathize with the sentiments and aims of many who would be called anarchists, I actually do NOT consider myself to be one. As distasteful as it generally is to me, I am certainly NOT so much of a misguided rule-monger as to absolutely forbid rule-mongering. I am NOT prone to say that rules are totally unnecessary or without good purposes — merely that, so far as I can tell from my experiences and studies of matters, MOST usually are NOT vitally necessary to the most beneficial purposes or those for which they are designed, and far more easily twisted and misused to vile and even evil purposes than they are necessary or conducive to healthy and beneficial purposes.

I currently speak as a person who might be peculiarly posited to be in a rather strange and unusual position, and often very hard to make clear to people prone to side with various ideological factions who are prone to promote definite and distinct divisions of human beings into political or religious groupings often very casually labeled "good" or "bad" rather than a general unity which includes profound recognition of various levels of impulses BOTH good and bad in US ALL. I myself and some others have called such positions ones which gravitate around a "radical center" of those who can USUALLY perceive much of BOTH foul and fair in the ideas promoted by the extremes of BOTH "right" and "left" as well as those without many strong convictions who would sometimes wearily suggest defective compromises between the two. We usually seek to find ways to create melodious harmonies out of the ideas we find, rather than absolute silences or cacophonies of confusion. We do not always succeed. Even when we do we often can encounter many poorly anticipated or hard to escape problems — especially when some of our most useful means of working without attracting much notice are taken away by presumptive opponents who PLAINLY have no good idea of what we are up to — and usually are projecting many BAD ideas out of their own imaginings as to what that might be.

To speak in "political" terms which I usually try to avoid, because they can so EASILY be misconstrued and twisted into interpretations quite different than those I actually could endorse: though there are many things about which I can disagree with many of those who would consider themselves "anarchists" or members of the "libertarian right" or "libertarian left", I share with all of these groups a general abhorrence of many rules and opposition to strictures of either right or left authoritarians — or any mushily middling mediocrities who generally side with whoever seems strongest or most likely to provide them some immediate advantages. I recognize that ANY factions can sometimes degenerate into mobs amidst whom even more factional gangs can frequently work extremely destructive or oppressive wills which distract many from the ideals and options which might have originally inspired and motivated many people, and bring even the most well intentioned into extreme discredit.

I recognize that when people with actually profound awareness of the complexities of many problems (and the levels of genuine GOODNESS at work in MOST people, as well as the genuine confusions and even insanity in MANY), are actually moved to begin to speak, many who are quite satisfied with their previous simplistic labels are quite irate and prone to object to the burdens and tasks of trying to understand patterns of thought or expression which defy or disregard many of their most familiar labels — and actually declare some them to be applied falsely or casually in ways which are far more detrimental than beneficial.

I have long recognized I have a VERY strong aversion to the creation or promotion of absolutist rules and assertions, whether devised by myself in my naivete or by others in theirs — and in coming months I hope to have opportunity to make far more clear WHY this is so. I have sincere belief that the hasty or overly presumptive creation of such are usually, but not always detrimental to humanity's welfare. I repeat an indication with emphasis, that to the fullest extent possible, knowing BOTH good and bad of them, I LOVE PEOPLE — and I support the growth of freedoms and opportunities of people — and thus, though I certainly do NOT go so far as Will Shakespeare's character in saying "let's kill all the lawyers" — I am "outlaw" enough to speak somewhat like a lawyer in asserting: let's strive as earnestly and vigorously as we can to reject and repudiate the most harmful of human prejudices, presumptions, and humanly devised laws, and to respect our lives and freedoms in the light of natural and innate patterns of Necessity. I believe it to be a very good and beneficial idea to strive to illuminate many minds and to eliminate many limited and deficient and flawed laws which have often been made by people enamored with words and their limited understanding of them far more than freedoms and the Reality which exists and abides with a permanence and with laws and patterns of behavior and will beyond all words. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks...[reply]

I grant that Tom Sawyer is a bad example, as this character falls squarely within the exceptions outlined in the draft, being eponymous to the work (even though the full title of the main book featuring this character is, technically, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer), and being the subject of external commentary about the character itself as distinct from the work. We can and should have a page on this character. A better example would be Jim, the freed slave who appears in Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and several other works. To have a duplicative page on Jim separate from the work would denigrate Mark Twain's actual authorship of whatever quotes are attributed to the character while adding no value to the project that could not be realized with a redirect. Of course, the multiplication of authors writing dialogue for a specific character is far more common modernly, with the advent of a variety of forms of media in which creative works can be made. For this reason, and for copyright concerns, this issue is exacerbated where the character is part of a franchise with multiple authors varying by episode, season, film, or book. Unlike Tom Sawyer's world, all works relating to characters such as James Bond, Captain Kirk, Batman, the Hulk, and Luke Skywalker are covered by copyright, and perhaps more importantly for this discussion, recurring minor characters appearing in cunjunction with those characters (e.g., Miss Moneypenny, Yoeman Rand, Carmine Falcone, General Ross, and Wedge Antilles) are also within copyright. Having pages on more modern characters separate from their authors and works makes us more vulnerable to including not only duplicative materials, but excessive materials exceeding fair use limitations for copyrights. BD2412 T 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter. Keeping material about a work of fiction on a page is a rule that helps present a clear structure to our viewers, in much the same way that keeping discussions on content on the associated discussion page. I didn't think Tom Sawyer was such a bad example. A plethora of examples springs to mind of fictional characters represented by different authors where it would not make sense to present quotes form different sources. Perhaps one such example might be to consider the characters from Alice in Wonderland. There have been, I am guessing, many notable adult films featuring the characters that have quotes that arguably could fall within our scope. But it would seem incongruous to place the wit of Lewis Carol next to the wit expressed in these films. It seems much more sensible to keep a page on each fictional work. There is of course the case of fictional representations of real people. If someone decides to create a for the fictional quotations of the Queen of England how do we decide where the best belong, would it be Elizabeth II (fictional) or just Elizabeth II?

It also helps to in simplifies potentially difficult decisions. How notable does a character have to be to deserve their own page. Does the Master get his own page, what about the Slitheen or the Nestine Consiousness? Where to draw the line gets a bit fuzzy.

Finally by having a separate page on each character, what prevents us from exceeding what ever limits we set on reproducing the dialog from some episode. It may be that ever particular page lives up to what ever limits we set, but wikiquote itself still holds enough information to be considered infringing on copyright. I have a feeling BD2412 understands these issues better then I, so maybe he can comment about whether this really is a concern.

Over all, I think that the rules imposed by Wikiquote:Fictional characters just help to provide good structure to our pages, which in turn helps provide our readers with a more polished site. It gets to be very difficult to navigate a site if your looking form a quote of particular fictional characters and for characters from one franchise you look on their page, and characters from another franchise you look under page on the work of fiction. That being said I think redirects from major characters should exist, with possibly disambiguation pages for characters that appear in multiple sources. I think subpages could be used if a page gets to be too large (Mostly because Mediawiki starts to complain when a page gets over 32kb, because I think some browsers don't implement edit boxes that hold that much info, etc.) Thenub314 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few good issues and objections have been raised since my last comments, and I do acknowledge them, but don't have time to give them fullest possible consideration and to make a full response at this time. I do intend to get back to this discussion within the next day or so — but expect to be EXTREMELY busy for at least a few more days — and it might be several days before I turn my attention sufficiently to these issues to make further comments. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations

I may have noted before that I have imported all of Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations, a 1922 work now in the public domain, into our project space. I have been keeping myself busy formatting the quotes on the 800+ pages by topic, but the work is quite extensive, and I could use some help. In particular, there are a few pages that are just very, very long, running into the hundreds of quotes. These include:

The quotes on these pages need to be formatted consistently and then merged into the existing pages on their respective topics. Many of these quotes are duplicates of existing material, and can be deleted, unless the existing material is not as well sourced, in which case the existing quote should be deleted and the Hoyt's version kept. These quotes do not need to be sourced to be added to articles because Hoyt's is a sufficient source; however, source information for them could in many cases be improved. Please pitch in and help make Wikiquote a resource that encompasses everything quoteworthy that can be found in the public domain. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to thank BD2412 for the extensive work which has already been put into this, as it has been a major contribution to the project. I would encourage others to join him in his efforts, to the extent they can, but I realize all have their various priorities of interests and concerns. I apologize for myself, as I have far too large a backlog of things I wish to do here and elsewhere to join in this activity at this time, but I do recognize it and appreciate it as a worthy effort, and the KIND of effort at resolute contribution of clearly useful material which are MOST exemplary and needed here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will all get done in time. I figure that if I finish one subject per day, it will all be done in about two years, and there it will be for the rest of my life. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for exposed sockmaster who refuses to self-disclose all sock accounts and stop socking ???

Please see thread at admin noticeboard about exposed sockmaster running for RFA.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing our new community liaison

I’m delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has engaged Maggie Dennis (User:Moonriddengirl) to serve as our first Community Liaison. The Community Liaison role is envisioned to be a rotating assignment, filled by a new Wikimedian each year, half year or quarter. One of Maggie’s responsibilities is to begin to lay out a process for how this rotating posting would work.

Maggie has been a contributor to the projects since 2007 and is an administrator on the English Wikipedia and an OTRS volunteer. She has over 100,000 edits, including edits to 40 of the language versions of our projects. Her broad experience and knowledge made her a natural fit for this role.

This role is a response to requests from community members who have sometimes felt they didn’t know who to ask about something or weren’t sure the right person to go through to bring up a suggestion or issue. Her initial thrust will be to create systems so that every contributor to the projects has a way to reach the Foundation if they wish and to make sure that the Foundation effectively connects the right resources with people who contact us. If you aren’t sure who to call, Maggie will help you. Obviously, most community members will never need this communications channel - they’re happy editing, doing the things that make the projects great - but we want to make it as easy as possible for people to communicate with the Foundation.

The job of the liaison will have two major parts. First are standard duties that every liaison will perform which may include maintaining a FAQ about what each department does, making sure that inquiries from email or mailing lists are brought to the attention of appropriate staff members, etc. However, we also want liaisons to be free to pursue unique projects suited to their particular skill sets. Maggie will develop such projects in the coming weeks.

Maggie will be on the projects as User:Mdennis (WMF) and can be reached at mdenniswikimedia.org. Her initial appointment runs for six months. I look forward to working with Maggie in this new role!

Philippe (WMF) 22:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice

Hello. I just transwikied Rice from a "Sayings" section I removed from Wikipedia's Rice article. I think I reformatted it correctly, but I'm sure it could use some more work from the regulars here. Thanks for the help! Ashanda 01:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job for your first Wikiquote page. Unfortunately, we are in the process of implementing very strict rules about sourcing when it comes to proverbs. We need published sources indicating that each one of these is in fact a proverb in the relevant culture. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]