Last modified on 6 March 2007, at 23:00

User talk:Jeffq/2006b

Return to the user page of "Jeffq/2006b".
Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vanilla Sky

what's up with th revert at vanilla Sky? CanWeStillBeFriends? 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in a hurry; I should have manually reverted instead of using a rollback so I could add a proper explanation. I apologize for my lack of comment. The reason I removed the "Who are you? / I'm Sofia / You are not Sofia. / I'm Sofia. / Whatever." dialog from Vanilla Sky is because I felt it isn't particular memorable except as a plot point in the film, enhanced by the visual contrast with the established identities of Julie and Sofia. Quotes that require too much visual or aural cues, or are more plot point that pithiness, don't make for good entries in a general quote compendium, however interesting they may be to fans of the work. (Also, could you please add links to articles you wish to discuss, and please don't add links in your signature that point to non-existent articles, as you did above? Thanks.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Hi, sorry for incredible lag... :P Thanks for welcome Jeff :) --Homer 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Seriously, would you like Tawkerbot2 to roam around these parts, we're getting ready to release a new version which will make it easier to go on other wikis :) (and yes, this is the w:User:Tawker Tawker speaking here -- Tawker 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in trying out this anti-vandalism bot, but I'm afraid I know very little about wiki bots. Essjay is our expert on counter-vandalism, and Aphaia seems to be well-versed on bots, but I don't know that either of them is very active on Wikiquote at the moment. I would want to spend some significant time learning about this before "turning it loose", and I'm still behind on issues that aren't currently being addressed by our normal maintenance efforts. You might ask the other sysops to see if they might want to devote some attention to this possibility. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

QOTD for Heinlein's birthday

I've noted that your votes on the Heinlein quotes suggested for tomorrow currently make it a tie between your top choice and mine. Sometimes when such ties have occurred I have deferred to the other person's preference (especially when I have thought them a very good choice, as I obviously do here, having first suggested it) but unless the balance shifts against me between now and 00:00 UTC I am more inclined to use the somewhat more controversial "Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense." over the very witty and amusing "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."
I have long thought Heinlein's brief statement on the matter of "sin" to be one of the best that there is, and that it gets to the very root of the matter, and at what is wrong with many far more intricate and "sophisticated" notions, by which all manner of crimes against humanity have been committed in devotion to artificial dogmas — from the simple derision and shaming of innocents, to the execution of "unbelievers", "infidels" and "heretics." I will be able to wait to the last minute on making the selection today, and since I currently am inclined to go with my own top choice, I will do so, to allow anyone else to weigh in, either for or against it. ~ Kalki 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'd had any concern about the tie vote, I'd have lessened my other vote. I'm perfectly comfortable with your decision either way, and your detailed explanation of your thoughts is unnecessary but appreciated. I, too, figured that if anyone had even a slight preference, they would be welcome to tip the balance. (I think that observation even encouraged my leaving the vote at a tie, based on my actual preferences, to try to incite some additional participation. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions draft

Hi Jeff, I noticed on the Hatori VFD debate LrdChaos brought up the fact that the current CSD policy does not cover the speedy deletion of pages at the author's request. I took a quick look at the draft you and Essjay had been working on a few months ago and noticed that it is considerably more substantial than the current CSD policy and permits deletion at the author's request, as well as deletion of articles that do not assert notability of the subject (though that one may need to be reworked as it seems to suit Wikipedia's needs more than Wikiquote). I'm not sure if you're still working on it as of the moment, and since Essjay isn't very active these days, is there anything that you believe needs to be done with the draft policy that I can take care of? I'd very much like to see it replace the current policy as it allows for more flexibility when it comes to speedy deletions (although not without a consensus from the rest of the active users, of course!) -- Robert 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I can be active if I'm needed; it's not my fault you guys do such a good job holding down the fort! They just need me more over on wp! ;) Essjay (TalkConnect) 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. The problem is that any policy revision on Wikiquote requires at least one person to commit to updating it, actively polling both the community (necessary) and individual frequent editors (practical) in several different ways to comment and otherwise participate, incorporating recommended changes, then actively polling the same groups again and possibly even more thoroughly to attempt to get a consensus, often ending by announcing the policy will go into effect by such-and-such a date unless there are serious objections (in order to apply maximum pressure for participation in the finalization). This is a kind of sustained effort that few of us Wikiquotians are willing to go through. (Most of our frequent editors seem to be fully occupied by whichever groups of routine maintenance and other editing activity that they're comfortable with.) I'm still working up the nerve to start this "final" cycle of effort for the revision of WQ:SD. Of course, anyone can get the ball rolling; it takes less effort to respond to others' initiative. [evil grin] ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
True, I admit I'm more comfortable doing cleanup and maintenance work on articles, but I'll see if I can also work up the nerve to get some polling done sometime in the near future. (Sorry Essjay, you just appeared to me as being very busy these days :)). -- Robert 12:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, I am, but I still check in here at least once a day for anything that needs me, and I'm always ping-able on wp or IRC if I'm needed. I'll be happy to do whatever is needed to help get the draft approved. Essjay (TalkConnect) 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For sorting out my imposter I say...

...Ta.--Crestville 11:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome, Jeffq. Doctormatt 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

same quote in two places?

I want to take the R.Turnbull quote I had asked about on the Reference Desk and actually add it to Wikiquote. It's about both Doubt & Faith (but not necessarily religion, although the source is a book about religion). Can I add it to both topic pages, or should I just add it to one of them? Or is there a better way? - Versageek 17:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it in both "Doubt" and "Faith", as they're both appropriate. Themes can overlap sometimes, and quotes can involve more than one on occasion. Also, since theme quotes should be from notable people and works, most of them will probably be in the person or work's article, too.
I wouldn't put it into "Religion" for two reasons: (1) inclusion in theme articles isn't based on the source, and (2) "Religion" has quite enough material just addressing explicit mentions of religion. If we included everything that had an implicit connection, the religion articles would become encyclopedias of their own. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: TOS

Hello JeffQ. I have made significant progress on the TOS/TNG clean-up, but I need guidance on something. If you could, please comment on "You're dead, Jim." Thanks in advance. -- CALQL8 03:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Erasmus quote

Among the proposed quotes for July 12 was this one by Erasmus: "This type of man who is devoted to the study of wisdom is always most unlucky in everything, and particularly when it comes to procreating children; I imagine this is because Nature wants to ensure that the evils of wisdom shall not spread further throughout mankind." When you voted on this quote, you had commented: "Don't know if this was supposed to be ironic, but it seems a rather seriously taken POV these days, to the point of ushering in a new Dark Age (IMHO)." As it turns out, Erasmus was indeed being ironic. The quote is from The Praise of Folly, a work in which the personification of Folly explains in her own words why, in a world in which she holds such sway, we would be wise to live like fools. The work is a pretext for a satirical attack on the folly of virtually all social customs. Folly, of course, wouldn't want the wise to multiply and is pleased when they fail to do so. - InvisibleSun 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it was ironic in the original. Unfortunately, I know far too many people who would proudly cite this quote as supporting the need to reject "intellectualism" in favor of blind faith and the embracing of feel-good irrationalities. Folly is alive and well, and growing stonger all the time in our supposedly enlightened age. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Hi, Jeff I cleaned up the Kent Hovind article and hopefully you can reconsidered your vote with the new improvements. C56C 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good start. I see five remaining problems:
  1. There are still some statements like "Hovind claims". Quotes should consist of 2 main pieces, the quote and the source, like so:
  2. As suggested by the above example, source lines should be on a secondary bulleted line, to separate the source information clearly from the quote, and to make the quote prominent. We have stopped using quote marks around quotations, as do many quote compendia, precisely because the quote is expected to be exactly the original words.
  3. I found, in a random testing of links, that some either didn't work or didn't provide the actual quotes.
  4. Some of the source information is not specific enough to make it reasonable for other editors to verify accuracy. The purpose of sourcing quotes is to allow verification by readers, so sources should be described in a way that makes the source readily locatable. The titles, authors (in the case of works citing quotes from the subject), publisher and/or overall work, dates, and reference numbers (like ISBNs, issue numbers, etc.) should be given whenever possible. (Many of your citations are most of the way there, but there could be some improvement, like providing titles or descriptions of sound clips, and naming the sources instead of requiring the readers to deduce them from the URL.)
  5. Sources must also be reliable, as the Wikimedia Foundation defines it. That is, they must be published by respectable organzations in some reasonable form for researchers to examine. Books, magazines, and well-respected websites are best; videos and sound clips are okay, but transcriptions should be cited whenever possible.
More information on the standard formats for quote articles can be found at Wikiquote:Templates; in this case, especially Wikiquote:Templates/People. There should be no attempts to interpret someone's words, nor should their words be represented in third-person. (There is an occasion need to provide the context of a quote, but we must be careful not to use context lines to include unsourced opinions.) More information on sourcing can be found at Wikiquote:Citing sources.
Despite these issues, I believe you have made the case for keeping this article. At this point, it's mostly a matter of cleanup. Thank you very much for the fast work! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I noticed that some of the summaries from edits by this IP address have been more conversational than informative. While such comments can be amusing, please consider that the main purpose of edit summaries is to help editors, when reviewing page changes, to find likely points at which information was added, deleted, or otherwise changed. For instance, "I can't help if" gives no indication that the quote "I've invented a device called 'the basement'" was added. Something like "+invented basement" would be much more useful. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found it helps when people get too hasty with the "Rollback" button to put something in there that makes them stop and look at what the edit was. 68.39.174.238 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think one should be using a rollback (as opposed to a manual revision) unless one has actually examined the changes. Edit summaries are not reliable enough to use as a basis for rollback. What they are good for is saving time trying to find a particular change. It doesn't always work, of course, but it saves an awful lot of time when it does. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Porbably true, but I use them as I learned to after going through several talkpage dialogs which ended up "I didn't mean to revert that". I'll see about the future... 68.39.174.238 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Thank you for your comment on User talk:68.45.15.86 and your all efforts to cool down. You chose the better way ... I hope it works. --Aphaia 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome

Williamborg 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your openness

Thank you for looking into that lawyer reference on Jim Shapiro, and being so open-minded about it. I made a comment right below yours on the Wikiquote Rfd. I wish you would say something on the admin page about this, too - even though it was not the source for the article, but buried in an admin's source that he pulled up. That particular admin has been really nasty...although I perhaps had been 'bold' in expressing my viewpoint in stating 'all lawyers should be incensed'. lol. Well, I do think that this kind of Wikipedia article is an insult to all lawyers, and indeed, that is what groups like 'Overlawyered' try to do -taint all by highlighting the miscreants in the field.Jawesq 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, but it's no more than I've often done for odd situations. This one was odd for two reasons: (1) most of Wikiquote's attack pages are about obvious unnotables, usually high-school students being dissed by enemies, whereas a professional lawyer has at least a potential for properly sourced information, whatever the content; and (2) it was created surprisingly long ago, like its WP counterpart, making one wonder why it took so long for someone to notice. (I'm sure Wikipedia deals with this stuff all the time, but Wikiquote, a much smaller community, is rather quieter.)
You're welcome to post a note to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard if you wish, but I don't see any particular need to call other WQ admins' attention to this, as we have no direct involvement with Wikipedia admins, and w:User:Tyrenius, who is not a Wikiquote admin, neither participated in our VfD nor appears to have edited the WQ article itself. I'll probably speedy-delete the article myself if someone else doesn't do it first. (Besides, even though no other admins have participated in this VfD yet, I'm sure most of them have seen it.) We don't seem to have any community desire to support this article, and now that it's blanked, it won't get propagated to any other mirrors or search engines. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I forget that these are 'sister projects' - I am just not that used to it. My guess about Jim Shapiro (had to think a min of his name lol) is that he is not notable, so not something most people would look up. I found it purely by accident, and was appalled when I saw it. I think it would be great if you speedy delete it. I am in awe of how many bizarre articles I have found on WIkipedia (I am new to Wikiquote). But this is the first I have found that clearly is an attack page meriting a speedy deletion. Jawesq 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Discorporation

I found your user page immensely amusing. I guess I can say I 'discorporated', when I left an engineering career (and corporate life) in my mid 40s to go to law school. I simply could not envision myself working in that environment for another year. It does still amaze me that lawyers are so often villified, since I consider my interest in law to be more honorable than engineering as I saw it in a corporation. Alas. Jawesq 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I personally like Murphy's corrolary : First draw the graph, then fill in the points. Or Mark Twain's "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I did not mean your edit

I have had no problems with any of your edits here or on WP or here. I had no problem with you crossing out the 'delete' part that I quoted from you, on WP. I should have done that. In fact, I didn't even look to see who did it, because it seemed eminently reasonable. I was trying to ask what you meant by the 'infamous scandal' and the proposal being considered for SD...That was what you had just discussed on the WIkiquote page...and it piqued my curiosity. Maybe I just need to leave all of this alone, since I seem to be stumbling. I have become more and more disillusioned with Wikipedia.  :-( Jawesq 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be so obscure. I'm afraid I was just too lazy to look up the specifics. I was referring to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, in which Wikipedia took a very public pounding for allowing a prank article created by an anonymous user, containing blatant lies about a public figure, to go uncorrected for several months. The most obvious change has been to prevent unregistered users from creating new articles on en:WP, but I think there's been a shift in mood as well, with quicker shutting down of apparent attack articles when they're spotted.
Try not to take this one problem too much to heart. Wikipedia, and its sister projects like Wikiquote, cannot be free of errors, but with a million editors (most of whom care about providing accurate information), it can often fix the ones that crop up much more quickly than any editorial board. There will always be problems, but the more conscientious people who join the effort, the better we can weed them out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you kindly Jeff Berniethomas68 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jeff

I have been livid today. The admin (Tyraneus) who refused to speedy delete the Shapiro article accused gfwesq and me of being sockpuppets and stated on AN/I that even if we aren't, we should be treated like sockpuppets. He objects to our having similar opinions such as the deletion review, and says we should not be counted as two people. Gfwesq and I are both attorneys and we are married. Is it so surprising that we have similar interests and opinions on many issues? What Tyraneus claimed was 'uncivil' was quoting his own reference back to him. Yet attack pages on lawyers are acceptable. Amazing.Jawesq 01:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw some of that interaction. Might I ask a favor? Let's discuss the Wikipedia stuff further on our WP user talk pages. I don't like to discuss one project's matters on the other project; it gets confusing for other readers (and me, too, sometimes). I don't think there'll be much more activity on Shapiro here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed my clearly frustrated response (not about you), but I still apologize. I would like to ask for your help (on WP). Thanks.Jawesq 22:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I hadn't noticed before that you had been blocked even from editing your own talk page, making my suggestion impossible. I can't make any promises, as the time I can allot to Wikipedia issues must come out of my greater Wikiquote responsibilities (and I've already spent more time there, just on Shapiro, than I'd meant to), but I will review the situation in the next few days. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I was blocked for a time from my own talk page, of course, by the same admin. Dont bother looking at it any more - you have said quite enough. I'm done with it, and with Wikipedia. Oh, and it is clear that an AFD, Review of deletion, etc are irrelevant, since the articles are recreated, anyway. I don't know why I wasted my time.Jawesq 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing VFD tags for kept articles

Jeff: Just a gentle reminder that you seem to be missing one step when you close a VFD where the result was to keep. I see that (with, for example, Kent Hovind, and others in recent memory) you add the {{vfd-kept}} template to the Talk page but don't remove the VFD tag from the page. It's something I've done a number of times, too, and now I usually try to make sure this gets done by occasionally checking the pages listed in Category:Votes for deletion against those listed on WQ:VFD. It's not a big deal, but I just figured I'd let you know. —LrdChaos 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is my most common failing when closing VfDs. The really stupid thing is that I noticed that I forgot this time, then proceeded to check the recent VfDs I'd closed to make sure I hadn't forgotten them… and completely forgot again to finish by removing this one! Sometimes I'm compeletely hopeless. ☺ Thanks for catching this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Honesty quote

I have deleted the set of pages that you created to contain a personal quote. You properly created a user page to include your own quotes, but then you inexplicably moved this page around through the Wikiquote article space, which is reserved for quotes from notable people and creative works. The result was very confusing:
I will assume this was simply a calamitous series of mistakes on your part. If you like, I can move the last version of this article back to your user page (where it started out). Let me know if you wish this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

yes Jeffq if you can please move back my quote to my personal page. Actually this is first time i tried to contribute something and realized at the very end that we cant put personal quotes unless its on personal page. I will again appreciate your help and sorry for inconveience. Thanks, Salman Khan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salmankh (talkcontribs) 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I must beg your forgiveness. When I first saw this highly unusual pattern of article moving, I'm afraid I thought it was a form of vandalism. (We've had a number of folks who engage in page-move vandalism.) Only belatedly did I suspect that you may just have been unsure of Wikiquote policies and procedures. I would recommend that you read some of the links I provided in my welcome posting for some basic information. Feel free to ask me any questions that arise. Thank you for your patience. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of films

Sorry about deleting the "Notes" links on List of films. I did not realise the "Notes" section had been deleted. --Thorpe 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'd missed the section's accidental deletion half a year ago by someone who was merely trying to add two Zorro films. I only realized the problem because I happened to have added the section last year, so I knew something was missing. Your attempt to bring the table of contents in line with the article content is very appreciated! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thank you for the late welcome. :) --Thorpe 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for the templated message. I should have made it a bit more appropriate for an editor of at least 8 months, but I was in a hurry to get something mailed, and I've learned to do small but useful things quickly lest they never get done. (When I started my campaign of welcoming every single new user back in March, I only went back as far as February to catch up. I still feel guilty about this arbitrary cutoff.) Thanks for taking it with good humor. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I seem to welcome a lot of people on the English Wikipedia (usually when going through the Recent Changes there). Are you an administrator here? I am one at Wikipedia. --Thorpe 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been an admin here at en:Wikiquote for about 15 months, but I'm not yet one at en:Wikipedia. I've contemplated the latter for quite a while. (For one thing, I sure would like to be able to find deleted articles more easily in order to aid Wikiquote's VfD process. There's also at least one document in the Administrators' reading list that, last time I checked, wasn't accessible to WP non-admins, defeating its use by other projects' admins.)
My greatest pause has come from the intense scrutiny that seems to fly in the face of the original "no big deal" idea of sysophood at WP, where anyone who showed mature judgment, commitment to the project, and a willingness to work on maintenance issues should be granted this right and responsibility. Wikipedia user MatthewFenton recently asked if I wanted to be nominated, but I'm afraid I gave him too ambiguous an answer. Since you've been through this yourself, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at my work on WP with an eye to how others, especially the usual RfA suspects, might view it, and let me know if I have a reasonable chance. But don't feel obligated. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discounted VfD votes

Please don't be offended by my discounting two of your three votes on the 10 August closures as being late. (I extended Petrolheads for a couple of reasons, rendering the question moot for that article.) I prefer to be scrupulous about following our policies, so we won't have any lapses held against us by clever vanity editors. I realize you're preoccupied with other stuff, though, and appreciate the time you were able to take to make your recent votes. I hope your real-world stuff is going well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem Jeff. I didn't really pay close attention to the times of the vote closures. I was able to squeeze in a little time and wanted to contribute as best as I could. I've got a little break for a few days, but then I'll be MIA again for a few weeks. ~ UDScott 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University VFD

I think you need to reconsider your Votes for deletion nomination of the Rutgers University Wikiquote article Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Rutgers_University, first re-reading the Wikiquote:Wikiquote article and realizing that LrdChaos jumped the gun by VfDing a page only minutes after it was started with no consideration that a.) it was a work in progress, and b.) it will be more than it appears, and c.) sometimes things interfere with the quick completion of one's work. —ExplorerCDT 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to make your arguments to me personally; I watch VfD very carefully. I apologize if we seem a bit hasty to delete here. Clearly Rutgers University is not in the same class as most VfD'd articles, as the institution is clearly notable and has potential as a solid quote article. But we have a lot of experience with new editors creating articles with infrastructure but no acceptable quotes, and never returning. This would not be a problem if we had a million editors like Wikipedia, but we typically have only a few dozen active ones at any given time — at best! — to review thousands of articles, so the mood among the active editors is generally to delete problem stubs and wait for someone who demonstrates their commitment to the subject by collecting the quotes before they create the article.
Of course, there are many opportunities for "jumping the gun" in this practice, and "Rutgers" may be one of them. The problem here is one that isn't made clear in WQ:WQ, but is in Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not — that Wikiquote, just like any professional quote compendium, does not collect entire source copies of anything, copyrighted or no. That is Wikisource's realm. You seem to think that just because something is old, it is automatically no longer copyrighted. Consider that the song "Happy Birthday to You", whose melody was written in 1935, but has rights that don't expire until 2030. The only thing currently clear in U.S. copyright law (which we must follow) is that works created before 1923 are no longer copyrighted. Wikimedia Foundation projects cannot take a chance on unsourced claims that material is in the public domain. (French Wikiquote was shut down over a single similar copyright issue, and has yet to be restored.) But even if every single song was not copyrighted, their entire lyrics should be added to Wikisource, not Wikiquote.
The quickest way to get editors to change their votes here would be to trim the current complete lyrics of the listed songs down to a few pithy lines each. This would remove the complete-work issue. There would remain the need to source the material, and the argument of relevance. The current mood seems to be that it's not enough for something to be somehow connected to the subject; it must be fundamentally about the subject. Thus, the school song would be relevant, but songs merely written by alumni, or songs that might be used elsewhere, would not. You will probably be asked to prove each song's relevance. We just finished reviewing another college article, University of Texas at Austin, that had only two quotes tangentially related to UTA. (I highly recommend that you read this VfD. The article creator decided to take a stand instead of taking the simple advice I gave to source the famous phrase "Hook 'em horns", which would have created an unassailable stub, after which there would be only content issues. I can't speak for the other participants, but that 5-minute effort would have changed my vote.) I suspect the quick nomination and voting on "Rutgers" was to prevent a sudden peak in collegiate promotion (rather than concise quoting) that it and a few related articles seemed to be leading to.
Regardless of these problems, there are two things to keep in mind. First, even the deletionists here welcome interesting, sourced quotes fundamentally about a notable subject. I'll give you the same advice I did unsuccessfully for the "UTA" creator: add those quotes (which surely must abound), and the deletes will go away without prompting. Once the article passes VfD, you've got plenty of time to work out content issues. Second, even if the article is deleted, it can be recreated when such material is established upon creation. Any recreated article about a clearly notable subject will be given at least two weeks (and often much more) to justify itself. But it's best to use the next 11 days to scare up some uncontestable quotes (rather than flesh out song lyrics that will have to go to Wikisource anyway) to prevent this article's deletion.
I want you to realize that I am being so verbose because I want this article to meet Wikiquote standards. (I could probably save it myself in 5 minutes, but I've taken this time to convince you to do so, so Wikiquote will gain one more valuable contributor.) I am an inclusionist by nature, but a deletionist by practice simply because most creators of VfD'd article refuse to learn Wikiquote's purposes and practices or even to take shorthand advice (not like mine!) on how to get articles to meet standards. I can assure you that no VfD participant wants a potentially useful article like "Rutgers" to be deleted. You just need to give them a reason to change their votes, by addressing the issues in the article content. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Jeff, thanks for blocking the anon who's been stalking me. He's doing it here, Wikipedia, Commons, meta, and he also requested 13 new passwords for me. I was wondering whether you're able to delete this edit from the history, as he's posted in the edit summary what he thinks is my real name. SlimVirgin 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I went ahead and deleted the edit summary. Sorry for not blocking on sight; I wasn't aware it was a pattern vandal. -- Robert 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. Like you, I (will be) am a sysop at pt.wikiquote. --Slade meta 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Are there any articles on Japan in this project?68.96.23.7 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Japanese proverbs? Quotes about Japan? Quotes from Japanese people? I can give you a better answer if I know what you're looking for. (Also, please note that your IP address has been used for extensive vandalism in the past. You might want to register a username to avoid being mistaken for a vandal.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm that same vandal. Only, I don't vandalize anymore. And I'm looking for Utada Hikaru.68.96.23.7 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as "Hikki" apparently likes to say, shogyo mujo (all things are in flux and nothing is permanent). I'm happy to hear you've put vandalism behind you. Based on the variations of her name given at w:Utada Hikaru — "Hikaru Iwashita", "Hikaru Utada", "Utada Hikaru", "Hikki", and "Utada", and "Cubic U" — we don't seem to have an article for her yet, nor did a search reveal any trace of her. (The closest thing I found was "Hikaru", aka "Heavenly Hero MagiShine", from Mahō Sentai Magiranger (Magic Squadron Magiranger), and of course a well-known navigator-turned-captain from the original Star Trek.) I guess that leaves it open for you to create an article, if you have any quotes from her. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! Pleased To Meet You, Jeff! We'll talk some time, When I get any! Bye!

Krypto 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! No2

Hello Jeff,

Thanks for the kind invitation over to Wiki. I look forward to talking to you further.

Regards, TheoK 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda articles

Hi Jeff, I was wondering if you have an opinion on this topic I posted on the village pump a little while ago. I think the WQ community at large might have missed it because of the more urgent issue of VFDA being broken, but now that we have a new dated system for that in development, do you have any suggestions as to what could be done with these articles? I'm pretty stumped myself, but maybe you could offer some insight. Thanks, -- Robert 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request threw me for a loop for a moment, because I distinctly remembered writing at least 3 paragraphs on the subject. Then I recalled that, when reviewing what I'd written, I ran into several inconsistencies and even some inadequacies in my understanding of history-merging and GFDL requirements that eventually caused me to scrap the whole thing as being beyond my ability to address at the time. Since this genre is not one of my basic competencies, and I feel the need to do some policy and process reading before returning to this issue, can you ping me again on this in a month or so? I'm beginning to fray over many WQ and WP issues I'm involved in, and don't really feel up to addressing this one right now. Sorry. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It's fine, thank you. I'll continue to ponder this one and hopefully come up with a good solution. Hopefully the topic will get a response one of these days. -- Robert 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Zelda won't wait — Legend of Zelda: Other: Games (Unidentified) has been nominated for deletion. We could use your perspective there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Howdy :) Thanks for the welcome HK51 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

expansion tag?

Are there tags/templates for expanding articles (like the expandsion tag on wikipedia) ? Just wondering.-- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. (Editors tend to import tags from Wikipedia as they discover a need for them. If you do this, make sure the tag works correctly, as many WP tags have fancy features that don't work on Wikiquote without some extra effort to convert them.) Articles here are typically either stubs or they're not. Our lack here may be because the vast majority of requested work on Wikiquote articles is to clean them up by formatting them correctly, adding an appropriate 1-4 line introductory paragraph (usually based on Wikipedia's intro), and sourcing the quotes, which is by far our biggest challenge. Everyone wants to add quotes; very few people want to identify exactly where they came from. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It works on this site. All I have to do (if I can) is make a page called "Wikiquote: Requests for expansion" (to make request for things that need to be expanded like on wikipedia), remake the tag, and make a category (possibly called "Category:Articles to be expanded". I can try this...hope it works. ~ ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just created Template:Expand. -- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

...And I created Category:Articles to be expanded.By the way, thanks for the replies.-- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'm done.-- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up this missing element for Wikiquote. You might want to take at look at the changes I made to see a few points that you missed:
  • I corrected chronological flow to match the effect of the "Submit a new request" link, which always adds items to the bottom, and which also is in keeping with the general Wikiquote practice of using forward-chronological order. I also made a few Wikiquote-specific changes that you may not have known about. [1]
  • I swapped {{expansion}} and {{expand}} to conform to Wikipedians' expectations. (Both will work.) [2]
  • I added specific style elements to the template, based on a use of MediaWiki:Common.css that isn't kept in sync with Wikipedia's copy. (I wouldn't advise tweaking that directly at this point, though, as disasters may ensue. Someday we'll have to add this to our maintenance projects.) [3]
Don't worry about them too much, though. Just like with articles, templates and policies can be tweaked. The hardest step is usually setting them up well in the first place, which you did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was so busy making sure that this policy page had all the necessary tweaks for Wikiquote, that I forgot one significant difference between us and Wikipedia: we often don't bother with request pages, except for those that involve articles that don't yet exist (like Wikiquote:Requested entries). We pretty much use templates with category tags inside them to collect such requests. I'll have to think about this a bit, but I suspect that we'll wind up redirecting your carefully crafted Wikiquote:Requests for expansion to Category:Articles to be expanded, placing a very brief version of the text in its introduction.

This is one of the challenges in trying to adapt Wikipedia practices for much smaller projects like Wikiquote. Wikipedia has thousands of people who pore over these maintenance pages to think about things to do, so they can afford some duplication of effort, but we tend to favor simple one-step tagging wherever possible. Since Wikimedia categories can do most of the collection work, it saves us a lot of trouble. Sorry I didn't think of that sooner. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up. It's pretty hard for me. -- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's hard for anybody, and you're doing a pretty good job so far. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
True. but thanks again. -- ~ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ~ 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my opinion is that this is best handled as a category, with a short explanatory paragraph. That way, there's no list page that needs to be manually updated. Any suggestions or specific requests can then appear solely on the article's Talk page, which is a better spot for them anyway. We should probably take this discussion over to village pump or some other venue if it's to be continued. —LrdChaos 20:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree; I'm just in total reaction mode right now and am too lazy to bring it up myself. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Village pump questions

I've answered your two recent questions on the Village pump there, instead of here as you requested, because VP answers are often helpful to other readers as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Okay. thanks. -- ~ ☺ ♥ * Cute 1 4 u |talk to me! * ♥ ☺ ~ 06:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WoW page

I was able to delete this page with no problems; I'm not sure what the problem was (perhaps an intermittent DB error?) but from the deleted version of the page, I don't see anything that looks insidious (thought it could be buried in the middle somewhere). —LrdChaos 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible it was an intermittent error, but I'm highly suspicious of such an error that only occurs for 1 article which happens to be about a vandal. I had been able to look at the article before I tried to delete it, but my second and later attempts failed. Oh, well. Thanks again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For something like WoW, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious. I don't see anything in the source from the page that would affect anything, but it's not impossible that some bug with Mediawiki was exploited (though I don't know why this wouldn't affect everyone). —LrdChaos 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Report

There have been people making fun of me at school and have been taking advantage of Wikipedia and Wikiquote to make fun of me. I hope I am not wasting your time, as I have wanted to delete these articles, but have not wanted to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.88.131 (talkcontribs) 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I find no edits on either Wikiquote or Wikipedia from this IP address, and you have not identified yourself by name or told me what articles are involved in these problems. I'm afraid you'll have to give me more information if you wish me to help you. If you don't want this information made public on a WP or WQ page, you can click on my "E-mail this user" link to send me an email. If you do, be sure to leave the "Wikiquote e-mail" prefix in the subject line. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No quotes unless famous?

Dang, I guess I don't get to be quoted unless I'm famous? Someone added a quote of mine to the Computer section many months ago and you removed it with the message "removed 6 quotes from likely unnotables" Ah well. I guess that was my fifteen minutes of fame. 83.250.112.153 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Shae Erisson

Sorry, Shae, but that's how Wikiquote works. All of Wikimedia Foundation's projects focus on sourceable material from folks and works with established fame. There are many quotes sites that don't have these requirements, and it's also possible these days to have more than just 15 minutes of fame by creating a sufficiently interesting blog. I think even Andy Warhol would be impressed by how many paths to fame there are these days. ~ Jeff Q (talk)

Busy guy

Thanks for your help at the VP, you seem like a pretty busy guy around here. If you'll allow me to misquote the Eagles: ...you can log out any time you want, but you can never leave.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

VfDs

Whoa, pardner! I appreciate your enthusiasm for cleaning up articles, but could you give us a bit of a breather on your record-setting set of VfD nominations? I'm very concerned that even the regular reviewers, let alone newer visitors, will have a hard time doing justice to 40 new entries in a single day. You might instead make a list of your finds, and we can sift through with the proposed speedy-deletion changes in mind, possibly to allow us to SD many of them in the near future. Just a suggestion, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just an avoidance exercise. I started looking at Special:Shortpages and found it more fun than what I was supposed to be doing this evening. Time for me to go to bed, anyway, so I'll leave you in peace for the overnight hours at least. 121a0012 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that tactic myself. I'm currently using it to avoid some annoying paperwork by mass-converting the old VFD archive pages. Anyway, thanks for calling attention to this entire area of needed cleanup. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a nice introduction

It's good to know that politeness and good maners are still alive on the internet :D DavidMcKenzie 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

An editor using this IP address [4.242.192.137] recently reverted the addition of an unsourced quote from Steve Irwin in Last words, citing "Vandalism" in the edit summary. Although the effort to remove unsourced quotes is appreciated, I would ask the editor not to say "vandalism" unless it is clear that the material reverted is a deliberate attempt to sabotage or undermine Wikiquote. In this case, there appears to be a possibly misguided effort to add a "last words" quote from Irwin, who unexpectedly died today in an underwater accident. I would recommend treating these unsourced additions as merely incorrect and therefore worthy of removal, but not vandalism. (I find a summary like "rv unsourced quote" to be accurate without implying any ill intent.) Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the asumption of good faith principle, but at the time it was rather clear it was a bad joke at the late Steve Irwins expense since one of is catch phrases is "Crikey!" will make it more generic next time if there is one.--4.242.192.137 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a good chance your thinking is correct, of course, but things tend to go more smoothly when we assume the best at first. The smart alecks eventually stop when they get bored, and we don't insult anyone who actually meant well. Thanks for understanding. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah

I have reverted your removal of the deletion nomination of Ruanaq malholtra on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. Once an article is nominated for deletion review, it may not be removed until it has completed its review period or is closed early by a sysop. Please do not do this again, or it may result in your being blocked from editing for vandalism. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

to whom it might concern

my friend made that "vanity" page as a joke and i didnt like it so i made an acount so i tried to delete it but since (like i mentioned earlier) i had just made an acount so i wasn't very familiar with how to manuver on this cite. i think i deleated that other thing that you mentioned. anyway i tried to at least tone down the article to make it true but no less boring. theres really no reason to make yourself look childish. i dont apprieciate all the sarcasm. it made you look like you were on a huge power trip. i wanted it to get deleted, but there really isnt any reason because it's all true. i know you were just doing your job but that doesnt require rudeness you displayed. and thank you for warning me. and for warning everyone that i was warned.
with the repsect due
daniel

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hippieboi (talkcontribs) 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to my use of the word "thoughtfully" in WQ:VFD#Daniel Baltz, which I admit was unnecessarily sardonic. However, your actions have not matched your stated intent, even when allowing for inexperience. Had you really intended to delete the "joke" your friend made, the obvious tactic would have been to blank Daniel Baltz. What you did instead was attempt to delete a legitimate effort to review whether that article belongs on Wikiquote, which it clearly doesn't. You also made corrections to the article, which demonstrates an intent to keep it here. It's understandable that a new editor may not be familiar with Wikiquote inclusion guidelines and other practices, but you don't appear to be trying to learn them, but rather trying to undermine the effort to implement them.
Please note that Wikiquote is a serious effort to compile sourced quotes from notable people and creative works. It is not a place to play jokes or to socialize with friends. (Please read Wikiquote:Wikiquote and Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not for more details.) There are many websites that provide these social functions, as you know from your account with MySpace. If you decide you would like to assist us in our work, though, we would still welcome your serious contributions. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Television shows

Jeff, I have a question for you: although the current TV show template does not contain it, it seems that we have traditionally included a show's cast on its page (as we do for films). But in recent edits to Prison Break, the cast section has been removed (I recently restored it). Do you a) see value in having the cast included (as I do); and b) if you do, should the template be updated accordingly? There are numerous TV show pages with the cast section included, but there really isn't any official sanctioning of this. I wanted to get your opinion before engaging the editor that removed the section from the Prison Break page. Thanks. ~ UDScott 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall a specific discussion on this, but I believe the reason we hadn't added a cast list to TV shows was that the TV shows we were working on last year tended to have characters with Wikipedia articles, allowing the use of character links, which indirectly provided this information. Of course, many TV shows won't (and probably shouldn't) be in this situation, and it is quite logical to have the actors' names specifically listed somewhere in the article. I recommend adding the "Cast" section from Wikiquote:Templates/Films to the same position in Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows (perhaps with the heading "Regular cast", or perhaps just as-is). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

I thought it was up to me what i put on my personal page, and ive also seen that the rules clearly state that your allowed personal quotes on your personal page, sorry allmost 4got to sign JaGuar 0041 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User pages here are places where users can post whatever they feel inclined to state about themselves and their interests, within the limits established by the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the purposes of its projects.
The userpages are not merely free web pages for users to post whatever they wish, and permitting incidents of libel, slander, or impersonation to remain upon them are definitely against Foundation policies. The continuing acts of vandalism, impersonation and harassment revolving around any pages dealing with "Greg Buk" and comments about him, are sufficient to prompt administrator intervention where unsubstantiated claims are made about him, including the claim of being him. ~ Kalki 10:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You serious, cant even put stuff on my own page, bah to hell with this wikiquote nonsense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaGuar 0041 (talkcontribs) 10:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, Wikiquotians do indeed have a wide latitude over what they can place on their user pages. As Kalki said, however, there are some things that are not acceptable material on any pages within Wikiquote, or any Wikimedia project. First and foremost is material that violates the law or opens the Wikimedia Foundation to lawsuits, including copyright violations and libelous material.

You claim to be the "real" Greg Buk, but we have no way to verify that. Your personal testimony is irrelevant, just as mine would be if I claimed to be "Sam Lee". Several other factors provide us with compelling reasons not to believe your claim:

  • The material you added was essentially the same contained with the article "Greg Buk", which seemed less like a set of personal quotes than an attempt to smear this "Greg Buk", hardly an expected attitude of someone toward himself.
  • This material first came to Wikiquote's attention when someone also claiming to be "Greg Buk" complained it was a personal attack against him, which seemed far more likely.
  • Wikipedia has had to repeatedly delete re-creations its own "Greg Buk" article, which strongly suggests that there are one or more individuals that were determined to ignore WP practices, and who have apparently moved their fight to Wikiquote, a pattern we're quite familiar with here.
  • The juvenile quality of the writing involved not only in these "quotes" but in the arguments at WQ:VFD supported the growing suspicion that the participants in this debate are all school children, who frequently demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to follow Wikiquote policies or engage in reasoned discussion.

Regardless of who or how old they are, editors are not allowed to use their user pages as a soapbox to promote non-project-related matters or to attack people, especially non-famous people, and most especially children, even if they themselves are children. Wikiquote is not a schoolyard, it is a serious project to collect quotes from famous people and creative works. If you have read Wikiquote:Userpage (i.e., "the rules"), as you suggest above, please re-read the section titled "Ownership and editing of pages in the user space", especially the line:

Community policies, including no personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.

Even if you were "Greg Buk", your attempts to promote an article about yourself without providing any evidence that you are notable on the world stage (not within a single school), combined with your lack of editing on any other subject, would mark you as a "vanity" editor, not someone interested in contributing to Wikiquote's purpose.

You seem to feel that Wikiquote should be like MySpace, where you can write anything you wish on your user page. Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not clearly states that "Wikiquote is not a personal website". User pages exist to help users serve the goals of Wikiquote with some freedom to express themselves, but they are not social networking services. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Philippe Grimaldi

Hi there

I just want to provide you, or rather Laura Jane Coats if she is still interested, to get in touch with my father Philippe Grimaldi. I just stumbled onto this posting:

philippe grimaldi/book project by laura jane coats
philippe grimaldi is listed under acknowledgements for corsican proverbs and i would like to reach him regarding a book project under development - can you please provide contact information to help me reach him. thank you, laura jane coats--66.245.44.159 16:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The acknowledgements in which Philippe Grimaldi was mentioned were added by anonymous user 82.65.18.94 nearly two years ago. It is highly unlikely that that IP address is being used by the same person after all this time, but you could try to post your question to its talk page. We don't have any contact information on non-users, and anonymous users don't have any contact mechanism other than IP talk pages, which they rarely use. Considering the possibility that this person may be famous, I found that "Philippe Grimaldi" doesn't show up in the English, French, or Italian Wikipedias. You might post your question in Italian or simple English on it:Wikipedia's Reference desk (I don't know what it's called, or if they even have one) or their Village pump. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.229.32 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must give you the same advice I gave the anonymous person who posed this question on Wikiquote:Reference desk over a year ago — we have no way of contacting any anonymous editor, other than through IP talk pages, which are very rarely ever monitored by the even the current users of those addresses, let alone ones from years earlier. Each of the IP addresses involved in this drawn-out Internet version of a "Marco Polo" game is registered to an Internet service provider, meaning that, in all likelihood, the original users of these addresses are not the same ones who posted. And people rarely remember their old IP addresses, so it's highly unlikely posting your inquiry to User talk:66.245.44.159 will get the attention of "Laura Jane Coats". But you are welcome to try.
However, you may have an avenue of opportunity not available to Ms. Coats. There is a "Laura Jean Coats" who is a writer and/or illustrator of children's books, according to the Library of Congress. (Go to the LoC Catalog, click on "Basic Search", enter "coats, laura jane" without the quotes in the "Search Text" box, select "Author/Creator Browse", and press "Begin Search". The first link will be for this author, and that link will list a number of her books, and each book link will take you to publication information for the book.) There is no guarantee that this is the same person who posted the earlier inquiry, but if you can obtain a copy of one of this LJC's books from your local library, you may find within it a means to contact her through her publisher. (If there is no specific mention of how to do so, you can probably look up the publisher on the web and find a "Contact Us" link that will provide a mechanism to pass along a comment to an author.) I hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

I invite you to look at the abortion page. Catamorphism seems to be trolling to create controversy where it need not exist. 139.139.161.12 08:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, God, not more abortion controversy. I'm incredibly busy with major policy revision right now. (I expect to unintentionally set a Wikiquote record for number of edits in a month very soon.) Could you folks please work this out among yourselves? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted misspelled tempate (sic)

Jeff, I've just deleted "Tempate:SD No content", as it's a misspelling, and already exists in the Template: namespace as Template:SD No content. They looked similar in substance (the example page names differed, but that appeared to be all), but you might just want to double check in case you changed anything between the 10th (when the correct template was created) and today. —LrdChaos (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this two-part mistake. I'd forgotten that I started with "no content" when creating these templates, and my all-too-frequent inability to spell "template" in the seach box prevented me from being reminded when I got to "no content" again in my progression through the SD cases. If there wasn't so much work to be done, I'd feel compelled to take a wiki-break. But I'm probably scheduled for one after the mass VfD closure party on 29 September. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Jeffq, thanks for your advise regarding Vandalism. Gakrivas 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

VfD closure party

Since you and I seem to be doing most of the VfD closures these days, I wanted to check to see what your plans are for the imminent closure party that starts at 03:00 (UTC) on the 18th, and runs through at least 06:00, for a total of 39 entries (and a few more than that in total articles). Is there any particular time that you were planning to tackle any of these? I'm rather flexible in my WQ work, so I can do some while you aren't, and vice-versa. (Or I can do all of them, or you can do all of them, or another sysop can beat us to it — I have no preferences, so long as the job gets done.) If I don't hear from you sooner, I'll probably start on them not long after 03:00. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly be around to handle it, though I was mostly planning to wait until around 14:00/15:00 when I got into work tomorrow morning, but I can help out tonight. Breaking them down by closing time, it looks like four close at 3, four more at 3:30, nine at 4:00, seventeen at 5:00, and four at 6:00. If you intend to be around for the 5:00 and 6:00 closures, I'll take the 3:00-4:00 ones. —LrdChaos (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just finished closing and archiving up through the 04:00 closures; the rest are all yours, if you want them. If you don't get to them before 14:00/15:00, I'll start working on them then. —LrdChaos (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've finished up the second set, so we're done. I was thinking this would be good training for the 29 September closure party, but as folks seem to be reluctant to nominate during this closure-shortening phase-in, that one might not be as challenging as I had thought. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. —dto (talkcontribs) 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

wikizine

Hi, I have done some testing and I have found it what you mean with that password. I do not send out a password to listmembers. There is no need for them to have one. I want to keep to subscription so easy as possible. The text that says that you will get a password I can not edit. I have added a remark about that on this page;

Are there still questions regarding the subscription process to wikizine? Greetings, --Walter 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that clears that problem up for me. I hope to look into your request shortly, after I recover from some back-to-back crises and real-world problems. Thanks for the update. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chaucer

I've expanded the Geoffrey Chaucer stub from four quotes to sixteen, but I don't believe I now have it formatted correctly. I wonder if you could take a look at it? Antiquary 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, please forgive my addition of a wiki link to Chaucer in your posting. It's a good idea to include such a link to make it easier for your correspondents (and you yourself if you are reviewing old discussions) to jump to the subject of the discussion.
You've formatted the Chaucer material as well as any poetry can be expected, I think. Linking only the first occurrence of titles is good. Everything else about the formatting is probably a subject of ongoing debate, but I'll list some points here:
  • Many editors feel poetry should be italicized. I don't believe we have any style guidelines or have had any recent discussion on this point. There are pros and cons to this idea.
  • It's a good idea to include terminating slashes in your HTML break tags (<br/> or <br />) to make them XHTML-compliant, but Wikimedia projects are still quite sloppy about this. (Consider that we can't even agree on whether there should be a space or no space before the slash.) I like to put spaces around the tag itself (e.g., "litel spir, <br/> So thorugh") because I don't like cramming non-quote material into the actual quote bits, but that's a personal preference that most don't seem to follow around here. If Wikimedia ever gets around to enforcing XHTML compliance, we can fix these issues with a bot, so it's an issue that's mostly only addressed while one does other editing to an article.
  • We tend to favor double quotes wherever quote marks are called for, even for British material, because of the "split the difference" compromise worked out years ago at w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, which is basically:
    • Using double quotes (American style) allows consistency and single inner quotes, and prevents some search problems.
    • Placing punctuation outside the quotes unless part of the quote (British style) makes more sense to editors sensitized by computer technology to syntactic token balance. (I don't know if anyone has ever explained it that way, but anyone familiar with the demands of logical punctuation in computer programming can see the illogic of the American system, which was, after, established by a single author working alone over 150 years ago.)
    • By insisting that both sides compromise a key principle, we promote both a consistent style and cooperation.
    Of course, plenty of folks ignore their half of the compromise and complain endlessly about unreasonable British or American editors. Oh, well.
  • Source lines sometimes end in periods and sometimes don't. We don't really have a guideline on this. WP says no periods, but since they often use bullets for multi-sentence information, even they have problems with consistency.
  • Finally, we discourage the use of links within headings. They tend to complicate wiki links and (especially for Wikiquote links to Wikipedia) make it hard or sometimes impossible to include useful edit summaries, which are very, very important. On the other hand, we have no established format on how to provide a link to a work that is itself an entire section. WP doesn't have this problem, as its articles can always make a linked reference in the first sentence of the text section, but all we have are quotes. Some articles include an indented, italicized line providing either the title and year (which is somewhat redundant) or the full publication details for source purposes (more useful). Some include a footnote for each quote to a reference section that has the wiki links along with the full citation (also useful for proper sourcing). Some might even include the sources lines to provide the link (very redundant, but perhaps less jarring that the first two).
As you can see, there are many formatting issues, large and small, that aren't really established here at Wikiquote. I've taken the time to address them here to give you a summary of the kinds of things we worry about and often don't bother to address, since the more important goals are adding and properly sourcing quotes. You're welcome to join in the fun of debating these issues as they arise in different articles (with different subsets of editors!), and the occasional push, at WQ:VP, WQ:MOS, or Wikiquote:Templates and its subpages, to establish policies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Greg Glassman

I'm afraid I've nominated your article Greg Glassman for deletion consideration because it provides no evidence that this person is generally notable. Please take a look at the nomination at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion#Greg Glassman and join the discussion there. The best way to ensure the article is not deleted is to supply references to reliable sources that show this person is known outside of a local area or narrow field. (I found one newsletter article about him on the web, but doesn't appear to be what Wikimedia considers a "reliable source".) Separate from the issue of notability, but also very important, is the issue of sourcing quotes. Wikiquote strives to identify published sources for its quotes, but none of the quotes currently in the article have any such sources. Adding sources might also assist in the effort to verify the subject's notability. Thank you for any assistance you can provide on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There was an extensive Wiki page on Coach Glassman that was removed due to controversy.

Here is the page:

NOTE: Entire Wikipedia article removed because it mangled my user talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This Google search will show the individual in question is internationally known:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22greg+glassman%22+crossfit&btnG=Google+Search

--Cylon 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing your pasting of the old Greg Glassman article from Wikipedia, but it seriously mangled my user page. It would more appropriate to create a user subpage of your own and provide a link to it. However, it doesn't seem like this is necessary, at least for the moment, because my casual inspection of the material suggests that it is exactly the same thing as the current w:Crossfit article.
The proper way to make your argument for keeping this article is to provide specific links to reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, so that editors may examine them. Making people sift through a Google search to determine what is and isn't an acceptable source may hinder your case.
When there is an active AfD at Wikipedia for a subject, like the AfD for Glassman's "Crossfit", Wikiquote tends to look to the vastly greater audience of Wikipedia for notability evidence. I recommend you make your best case there, and WQ will use that information. (You can, of course, post the same info here for easier access by WQ editors, just to be sure.)
There is an additional concern at WQ about sourcing the quotes, as many articles about people of insufficient notability tend to include large numbers of quotes with no published source (e.g., heard in direct conversation and not documented by any reliable source). Take a look at Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist) to see one way of providing sources for quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello again Jefficus,

Is it possible for you to make available to me the text of the articles Sophie (Sixth Former), Hannah Richardson and Get ahht? Oh, and also Eddie Segoura? They were deleted but I want them on my Amusement Wiki and it's successor "Pirate Bitch!". You could email them to me if you agree.

Thank you very much! Gary Kirk 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just please don't make me regret it by using them to annoy anyone, okay? ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The Homework Diary Company Ltd

NOTE: Link to The Homework Diary Company Ltd removed from heading to avoid internal link problems. ~ JQ

I noticed that you are supporting the deletion of the above article, and of a few affiliated articles. I have given some information on the deletion page, and, after seeing your user page, thought that you might be interested in a project to try and find sources for these quotes. Please see the deletion page for more information. Also, please read this notice which I placed at the reference desk. -- R160K 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more pro-active on this issue. I had already read your posts at WQ:RD and WQ:VFD, as well as all the articles nominated for deletion. Ordinarily I might have given you some specific advice on your talk page, but I'm afraid that I'm still recovering from my record editing last month, and am only operating at about 40% of my peak. I've provided a more comprehensive response to the issues surrounding your articles at WQ:VFD#The Homework Diary Company Ltd. If you have any more questions or concerns, you can post them there or to my talk page. If the latter, I'll try to be a bit quicker to respond. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the managing director of The Homework Diary Company Ltd, and asked him if he can inform me of his sources. -- R160K 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:bsm and Template:Esm

Just curious if there was some reason that you didn't use the new {{vfd-template}} on these when nominating them for deletion, or if it was just that you forgot. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just forgot, of course. Thanks for catching this! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Don't worry, I won't be a participant here for long -- I hope my first experience was atypical, but having wasted far too much time trying to stand up to the nittiness on Wikipedia, I've decided it's just not worth the effort. Post a quote, get it "formatted" to nonsense, and then deleted -- sounds about typical. Why bother? Regards - PhilipR 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When to delete entries?

Here's an elementary question, and one I should know the answer to by now: when does it accord with the etiquette of Wikiquote to delete quotations? I ask because I see that many of the various Attributed sections include entries which I find it impossible to believe were written by the supposed authors, and which I cannot find that anyone has ever attributed to those authors. I'm not talking here about quotations that are merely unsourced and (by me) unsourceable - that's what Attributed sections are for. In some ways it seems a shame to delete anything that someone else thought worth including, but then again it also seems a shame that Wikiquote should become a factory of misattributions. Antiquary 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy or regular practice on this issue. My personal take is that "attributed" or "unsourced" quotes are, for the most part, not much better than rumor, so we lose nothing when someone deletes them. There are, of course, well-known attributions without sources, especially for the more famous of our quotees, and removing any attributed quote decreases the chance someone will work to find a source for it. But given the overall editing activity at Wikiquote, the commonality of widespread mistakes in quote attributions, and the not infrequent attempts of some editors to introduce bogus or misrepresented quotes, I think we need to encourage the very few people who are willing to remove material to do so, especially when the quotes are implausible. I'd remove such a quote with an edit summary like "rm unsourced, unlikely quote" to make clear the reason (and hopefully encourage any objector to make a bit more effort to source or otherwise justify it). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Xpost fm en.WP-- belated answer

from Template:Ute
re: I'm posting a note here about this issue because you don't seem to be monitoring your en:Wikiquote account or any of your template creations there. Several dozen of your templates have been nominated for deletion. Their purpose is not adequately explained, a casual inspection doesn't make clear what need there is for them, and their creator's entire Wikiquote activity seems to be copying this material from other projects. That combination of unused infrastructure creation and lack of general quote activity usually begs deletion on Wikiquote. I admit I'm reluctant to spend the time I suspect is necessary to analyze these templates without any support from their creator. Could you at least supply us with some rationale for their existence, and pointers to where this cross-project effort is being discussed? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm totally swamped in RL so any and all wiki's, and even email are going unlooked at the moment. Do what you will. However, the benefit of cross-linking the newer sister's and bringing in common tools and some common 'tool' categories is and should be self-evident—it empowers the greater pool of editors in the large 800# sister to make meaningful contribs with minimal learning curves if familiar tools are available.

Admittedly, many tools in some of the wiki's are less important— when category and template analysis and management are small side tasks (Wikinews and Wikiquote being most applicable there), but the infrastructrure and interwiki linking is hardly adversely affecting anything. When in doubt, if something seems 'broken', import the new version from en.wikipedia. I'd planned on completing the evolution and documenting the newer simpler system the end of last month, and BAM, life intruded.

When I next have time to wrap my head about the problem(s) [it is a system after all], I'll be writing it up on Meta, as I've also been asked to bring it up to the communications committee there for possible interlanguage adaption, I presume. Adverse reactions have been nil, save for a capitalization clash on wiktionary—their naming conventions favor the lowercase form.

Any examination of the merits of the system templates themselves should be to look at the Wikipedia versions, as I'm certain the versions off Wikipedia are (mostly) a version behind—there was a major revision/upgrade last time I worked them. System elements are identified in Template:Cat by being offset/sorted under '!'.

If you'd be so kind, drop me a status report if things get torn up. I don't have the time now to do wikitalk infighting. Thanks for the heads up! (Crosspost: Template:Ute:Q:)

Thanks! //

15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome and all those useful links :-) -SriniG 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

dtabriz

Hey Jeff- I am definitely a rookie Wiki user. I made a quotation page about myself (dtabriz) and would like it moved to my user page, but don't know how. You tried helping me back in April but I havn't looked at it since! Sorry about that! I hope I'm posting this in the right spot too.... Thanks in advance. ~Dave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.198.231.132 (talkcontribs) 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have moved this post to a new discussion topic to prevent it from being archived before it is addressed.
Two points before addressing your issue. First, I'm afraid I didn't notice your post until just now, while I was reviewing my old talk page discussions. It's usually not a good idea to add a new post to an old discussion on a very active talk page (like a sysop's user talk page) unless it is specifically about the existing discussion. Even when it's related, it's still better to post a new topic, because new posts can easily get lost on very active talk pages without a recent heading to call attention to them. (In fact, had I last archived my talk page a week later than I did, or done my next archive on time, I might never have seen your post.) And in case you didn't know this, the "+" tab (post a comment) is the best way to add a new topic in the correct position on the page.
The second point is that you should make sure you are logged in if you are discussing an issue about your username, and you should always sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~), so that your post is timestamped and provides a link to your user page. This makes is much easier for someone to look into the issues raised.
Now, on to your issue. David Tabriz was deleted after a deletion discussion, but I can restore it and move it to User:Dtabriz if you like. Just let me know by responding here after logging on, to confirm you are indeed Dtabriz. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for welcoming me to the site, I've been a Wikipedia member for a while now but didn't know you had to have a seperate account for Wikiquote. Again, thanks for the welcome - I hope my stay here is an enjoyable one. - Maajid 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

VFDs

I don't think six really counts as "mass"! In any case, I really don't care to be a sysop. 121a0012 04:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wazzaup!

Hay, mind if I ask you a joke? Rezilartuen 22:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Already been through the Wazzawazzawaz disruption. Not interested in repeating it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Could use your Input on Wikinews

We are having some cross-wiki trolling problems; we could use you insight here. Nyarlathotep 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

JeffQ on Wikinews

Is this you? I'd just like to know since we've been having a problem on Wikinews relating to impersonation recently. (Please respond to my question on my Wikinews page.) Messedrocker 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not responding to any cross-project identification requests until I can sort out the problems we're having at Wikiquote and report on them. I accept any preemptive blocking of my Wikinews account during this situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I'm asking you to Resign.

This:

23:56, 29 October 2006 Jeffq (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nyarlathotep (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (temporary block against likely cross-project impersonation)

Is ridiculous. An admin of your so called "stature" makes a glaring screw-up like that? You should be ashamed of yourself. Dragonfire and myself attempt to help a rather low-key situation and you escalate it into the monstrosity that it was? That’s just plain a simple…stupid. I’m going to request an RfdA on you. Fair warning. Nyarlathotep 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

???

Ya Sure?

Thanks for the Welcome

If you need me to confirm this is me on n:User talk:Jeffq I will be happy to do so. Thunderhead 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Klein

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you not only restored the copyvio text in this article, but restored a badly-formatted version thereof instead of going back to my last version (before I discovered the copyvio). 121a0012 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was confused about this myself until I analyzed the edit activity involved. To make a long story short, I improperly edited new User:Trapper's version of the article to add a {{people-cleanup}} tag, when I should have noticed that the article had been updated several times since then with your logical changes.
This error has demonstrated a major flaw in my new-user welcome-and-review patrol. When I post welcomes, I often check user contributions to see if I can tweak or comment on edits to help set newbies on the right track early. Until recently, I always seemed to be the only frequent editor editing during the times that I do this work, so the new-user edits have been the latest versions. I've seen changes and avoided this mistake in the past, but clearly my old assumptions and level of attention are no longer adequate.
I apologize for the confusion. I'll try to be more careful in the future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Norman Levitt

Prowling around to check that all the {{vfd}} templates had been removed I came across this user and user talk page which you gave him a week to clean up as of the date his block ended (which was 15 October). Nothing seems to have happened - is it time for a deletion debate now? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I've been cutting back on my activity because I don't feel I'm adequately dealing with the many challenges we've got, and am trying to focus on a smaller set while I recharge my batteries, so to speak. This situation is particularly difficult because user page deletions are unusual, even more so when they're not requested by the user but are being done because of policy violations.
When I first read your message, I thought to myself that I didn't want to tackle this one until I addressed another pending user-page issue — that of a user who wants to remove traces of his real identity, but couldn't get us to take action on meta:Right to vanish because no one participating was aware of this policy. (See WQ:AN#User-requested talk page deletions, redux and WQ:AN#Ask to block and desysop LrdChaos for details.) I've been wanting to fix this for 2 months now, but have been dragging my feet on anything more unusual than repetitive maintenance.
I guess what I'm saying is that it may take me a while to get to this, but if someone else wants to jump in, fine. (If no one else is on board with my interpretation of policy, that's fine, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Danish politicians

I just noticed that you never added {{vfd}} calls to the pages for the other Danish politicians when you added them to the VFD I started on Morten Messerschmidt. 121a0012 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh! Even cutting back on my activity, I'm still messing up basic stuff! I've tagged them all now and extended the vote again so all the articles can get a proper 7-day hearing. Thanks for catching this, 121a0012. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mirabello

copied from now-reverted post to User:Jeffq/Near-term:

Hi, I note you have targeted the article--after I worked on it!

For the record, the article that was deleted from wikipedia was an amateurish one by his students. There is a new one, written by a chap in England.

His Cannibal Within was nominated for a Pulitzer, but was too weird to win!

From your interests, I would think you would like his stuff.

Before you delete him, run a search on some of his quotes. Thety are all over the internet.

--Blackhood 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I made the post on the wrong page! Thanks for fixing!--Blackhood 01:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Esperanza

Why don't you join wikiquote:Esperanza? I'll make you its first vice president.--Sir James Paul 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember if you join wikiquote:Esperanza you can be the vice president and help me set up the project. The goal of Esperanza is to make wikiquote a more friendly place to work. I hope you will join.--Sir James Paul 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've nominated for deletion your effort to establish an Esperanza project here. There are so many reasons why this is inappropriate (some of which I describe in the VfD nomination), but the basic problem is that you are too inexperienced a wiki editor to be creating a project like this. In fact, you don't even currently qualify for membership in Wikipedia:Esperanza. Your lack of awareness of how it operates, and how Wikiquote operates, make this project untenable. It is incredibly important before one assumes meta-project responsibilities like this that one first gets considerable experience working on the basic project. Otherwise, one cannot expect to be taken seriously when advising others. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad tidings. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the members list on both Esperanzas because I am a member of both. Plus I'm going to bring in members of both esperanzas to help me out. I also stepped down as president. Take it off the deletion list please. --Sir James Paul 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you join this project and help make it great? You and me will make a great team. Come on, just join.--Sir James Paul 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I had checked the list. The fact that people who don't meet the requirements can still add their names to the membership list reinforces my suspicion that Esperanza has some flaws that are being exploited by people who are much less interested in building an encyclopedia than they are in chatting with each other. (There's nothing wrong with the latter, if done in a MySpace context, but there is if it's using Wikimedia resources just to network.)
I believe you have only good intentions, but that's not enough. Creating and maintaining a project like Esperanza takes experienced editors willing to learn the rules of the projects they're working within and willing to devote the time to work within its policies to accomplish the stated goals. I know every single editor within Wikiquote who has the capability to do this — ir's a very small community by WP standards — and I believe there is no one willing to assume the helm of this particular project. The VfD discussion will show whether or not I am right, and if I'm wrong, we'll have the beginnings of a proper Esperanza. So there's no downside to the nomination.
By the way, another tip to a new editor: it's a good idea to compose your entire talk-page post before posting it, instead of making many small changes over time. If the person you're posting to is online, they will get an annoying message on every wiki page that they have a post, and will be encouraged to read it before they continue their work. If they try to respond while you are still tacking on additional notes, you will only step on each others' toes. As far as joining this project, I don't join projects unless I can commit to the responsibilities they incur. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no qualifacations for simple english wikipedia.--Sir James Paul 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to your membership on en:Wikipedia, the flagship project, where Esperanza can and should be expected to be more diligent and functional than for any other project. This is also where, unsurprisingly, its actual operation is being called into question. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I can make Esperanza work on wikiquote. I will encorage Esperanza members to work hard.--Sir James Paul 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard work isn't enough. One must know what one is doing, and why. This is not so important in a MySpace context, because encouragement during hard times is something everyone might be expected to know how to do, calling on the life experiences we all share as we mature. But it would be foolish to presume one could encourage university professors through the challenges of acquiring tenure without understanding academia, and it would be pointless to try to counsel suicidal people without professional training or personal experience. If you can't see how this is analogous to trying to assistance Wikimedia editors with wiki cultural problems without understanding how wikis work, you are only strengthening my argument against this noble but misguided effort.
I don't doubt your earnestness, only your ability to help out before walking the walk. If other Esperanza members like yourself, with no better understanding of what they're trying to do, start joining Wikiquote solely to provide this ill-considered assistance, you will only be complicating the already great challenges that the few people who have walked the walk are struggling with. You're already doing so with me, as I spend all my available editing time right now trying to get you to understand the problem, rather than address critical policy issues, perfomance massive amounts of basic maintenance, and give new users informed assistance on how to work with Wikiquote. You are currently achieving exactly the opposite of your stated intentions with your insistence, giving us an unfortunate but excellent example of why this won't work. Trust me, because I know what I'm talking about and have the years of documented wiki experience to prove it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I will start to work hard at editing once I've got my idea off the ground. I am determined for this to do well. I have this project well figured out.--Sir James Paul 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't acceptable. One doesn't decide to become a train conductor and take charge of a locomotive just because one wishes to be the boss. One must first learn the ropes and demonstrate competence at the desired task. Please either demonstrate such competence or desist in your attempts. Your persistence in this effort is beginning to look like the enthusiasm of a child who decides he wants to be President of the United States without understanding what it is that a President does, or just how much work it is even to stand for the position. I'm sorry if this analogy upsets you, but I'm having trouble understanding why you are so insistent on doing something you clearly have no ability to do yet, and lack of maturity is the only reasonable explanation I can come up with at this point. Most adults are aware of the basic need to prove oneself before one assumes responsibilities, and you show none of this awareness, only an unwavering need to be in charge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you take off the requst for deletion sign and give me till Christmas to work out the kinks. I beg of you, PLEASE.--Sir James Paul 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have the ability to do this. What you do not understand is that I have been asking people at wikipia Esperanza what the weaknesses are and I am going to make sure that does not happen here. --Sir James Paul 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember what I said about composing your message first and then posting it? This not only would avoid the edit conflicts you are generating in this discussion, but is the same kind of mature thoughtfulness necessary to tackle the project you have assumed for yourself. You continue to fail to demonstrate that thinking, making your case worse with every post.
Have you read even one of the policies I urged you to read? Wikiquote:Deletion policy, which anyone participating in a Wikiquote:Votes for deletion discussion is supposed to read, makes clear that, once nominated in good faith, a discussion should run its proper length unless and until a sysop decides that a speedy deletion is justified. You haven't even tried to justify your position with evidence, only pleading and promises not backed up by your documented lack of experience.
If you don't believe I am treating you reasonably in this situation, you are welcome to ask any other sysop, or perhaps run this by an experienced Wikipedia editor you know. I'm afraid you'll get the same arguments from them. Esperanzans, who are part of the general problem, are not a reasonable source for advice in this matter. Even so, I suspect if you talk to Esperanzans with considerable Wikipedia editing experience, they will also advise you not to pursue this. The primary weakness in your idea is your own lack of experience, which you cannot fix in a few weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I do not have the exprience that is why I am finding a more expierienced to be the president. I am just president until I can find a president to take my place.--Sir James Paul 03:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we start a new vote on Esperanza. I feel that the community does not understand it.--Sir James Paul 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read through the entire section but if the 'President' can just appoint his 'Vice president' (President, VP.. what the?) then it is obvious it would fail -- James you are a little too power hungry. MatthewFenton 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I'll be sure to check out the links - clearly this is a very different project than en.wikipedia, which is where I'm from. By the way, I noticed that User:Sir james paul created The Charter of Esperanza under that title. Should it be moved or VfD'd or something? Best, FreplySpang 05:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. (His username here is actually Sir James Paul.) I've moved the page to a more appropriate location, Wikiquote:Esperanza/Charter, and nominated it for deletion as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have improved Esperanza

Jeffq, will you please check out the reforms I did to Esperanza. You will see that it is far better than it was before. I think you will change your mind about it if you check it out.Please leave your oppinion of it on my talk page. Have a nice week.--Sir James Paul 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think wikiquote Esperanza is?

I think that you do not understand wikiquote Esperanza. I am wondering if you can tell me what you think wikiquote Esperanza is? --Sir James Paul 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack of Blades

I'm very sorry about the sloppy article I made. As you could have guessed, I haven't created many before, and my I experience was...limited. However, I've gone back and edited it, included sources, deleting some quotes and making it overall, I hope, in the right guidelines to be allowed to stay. If not, I'd be happy to change or add anything that is needed. Jack of Blades 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

Even if there was a deletion review I would not bring Esperanza through the process of undeletion. The community does not want it, I think thats because you were saying that it is the same thing as wikipedia Esperanza, and that it would have the same problems. It is not the same thing. Wikipedia Esperanza's goal is make a better sense of community, thats it, while wikiquote Esperanza has three goals, to keep a sense of community here, to keep vandalism from becoming a problem, and to encourage hard work. Since people seem to be driven by rewards Esperanza will give the hardest working editor one, a person who works hard to fight vandalism one, and give someone who is very friendly one. We will also reward the best article made in that month one. Some day I would like to push to make this again and I think putting this up for deletion really help. I would like to ask you if you think I became well respected here do you think it would become a project? Have a great week and god bless you and everyone you know. Thanks.--Sir James Paul 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

You went and undid one of my cleanup edits again (along with two of UDScott's). 121a0012 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dag nabbit! I'm not going to "fix" any more new-editor articles until I'm sure I'm paying enough attention. Sorry 'bout that. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My age

I do not want my age to get out anywhere on the internet. Other than my talk page did you say what my age is, if you did please delete it. By the way the age that you said on the talk page is my age. Another thing I would like to ask you is if you can let me make a new account since my age got out. Is that ok with you?--Sir James Paul 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be exceedingly difficult to purge your age from the database now.. its probably in tons of edits at VfD - I wouldn't be surprised if everyone knows your age.. I do.. MatthewFenton 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You can create a new account for yourself at any time. Simply log out of your current one, click on the "Sign in / create account" in the upper right corner, and register a new account name. Your email address can be the same as the old one, or different, or you can leave it blank. (It's only used if you would like someone to be able to use the "E-mail this user" link.) Just make sure you aren't still logged in when you create the new account, or it will show up in the new-user log that "Sir James Paul" created the new account.
Incidentally, you should be careful about giving out information about yourself. Please note that I had said that "one editor has claimed that you are" a certain age. I said it this way because we have no way of knowing this for sure, even if you agree that you are. Many people on the Internet these days claim to be something other than they are, and some of them have the ability to pass as older, younger, a different sex, etc. Even though I didn't think this was much of a revelation, as your writing style and other aspects of your posts strongly imply your age, I still preferred to write as if this information was not confirmed and was suspect. It's unfortunate that you chose to say this information was accurate. If you create a new account, I recommend that you avoid saying anything about your age to anyone you correspond with, even to agree with someone else's deductions. Wikimedia editors are not only not required to divulge their ages, they are encouraged not to do so, for privacy reasons. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About Warcraft

I don't think the page Warcraft violate copyright. It is nothing more than a list of dialogues.
If it was true that the Warcraft did violtate copyright, then so did the page The_Matrix. Why not delete the page The_Matrix together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhangyunfan (talkcontribs) 04:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll save my responses to this post, which asks a reasonable question, for the VfD discussion, which will ultimately reside at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Warcraft, whatever the result. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I've created a very trimmed-down version of the article at User:Jaxl/Warcraft, if anyone wants to take a look at it and see if it is an acceptable replacement. However, I'm not sure how to provide acceptable context, since I'm used to listing quotes by character. Would using italicized brackets ( [Context] ) work, or should it be formatted more like this:

  • Quote
    • Context

-- Robert 16:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We have two common policy-based contexts: the separate-line prefacing for dialogs, and the second form one you show above. There are many others in use, of course. The in-line preface form you're using in your current draft I find especially obnoxious because it seriously detracts from the quote itself. I'm of the opinion that what matters is the quote, and it should always stand out where it is quoted. That's why I fought for dialog context sentences always to go in a separate line (out of the way of the quoted text), why I urge as little dialog stage directions as possible (none wherever possible), and why I prefer using the usual 2-bullet source lines for context in other quotes, even though they are less satisfactory than putting the context first. Of the last, many professional quote dicts do the same thing. That's also one of two reasons I encourage dialog organization over character organization for articles that include both (the other reason being the use of context for sourcing, to avoid using timecodes instead as a kind of page number). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've reformatted the quotes per your suggestion and ordered them chronologically (aside from the unsorted ones). Let me know if you think the draft looks like a good replacement as it is now (I've also mentioned it on the VFD). -- Robert 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks much better, for what that's worth. I'd also suggest adding a release year to each installment, much like we might for book or film series in a combo article. I've made a few changes as well, including:
  • Adding a more descriptive intro & changing the WP links to w:Warcraft Universe, since w:Warcraft currently redirects to what looks (to me) like a specific installment.
  • Splitting the links into the standard "See also" and "External links".
  • Replacing the deprecated {{wikipediapar}} template with the parameter-capable {{wikipedia}}.
  • Adding a little non-printing space to make it easier to spot the categories and interwiki links.
Since you seem to know a lot more about Warcraft than I do, feel free to "un-fix" anything I may have messed up, especially the WP links, to achieve my principle of least astonishment intent. In any case, thanks for working on this. I was pretty sure this one would get fixed rather than deleted, so I'm glad to see someone rise to the challenge. (Let's hope other Warcrafters cooperate.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks. It's been a while since I've been really active on a wiki. -- Robert 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Template, template, template

Before my colleagues get a chance to (justifiably) mock me… yes, I know, I can't spell "template". ☺ Now I have a mass-edit history to remind me forever. [sigh] ~ Jeff Q (talk)

Don't worry too much about it, we all make mistakes. I've screwed up some edit summaries before, usually by leaving out a rather important "not" or something, and I'm constantly checking to make sure that I'm giving new users a "welcome" and not a "welcom" to Wikiquote. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have that problem, too. Firefox occasionally misfires when I expect it to auto-complete "Welcome" from the first two characters in the edit summary, so about 1 out of every 30-40 new editors gets a "we" message from me, according to the summary. Maybe they think I'm trying to promote a sense of fellowship? ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

About Warcraft (again)

Dear Jeffq:
May be you are right and the article of Warcraft should be trimmed.
Now I have modified some parts of the article. See HERE. This is an example of what I have modified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhangyunfan (talkcontribs) 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please read the welcome info I posted to your talk page, especially the recommendation that you sign your talk page posts. You should also read Wikiquote:How to edit a page, as you are using a lot of HTML unnecessarily. We try to stick to wiki markup to make editing easier for everyone.
Based on the modified section, it seems that you are trying to do some alternative grouping, but I'm afraid I don't get what that grouping is. (I imagine is has something to do with play or action modes, but that isn't made clear either by the WQ article or anything I've found so far in w:Warcraft Universe.)
Wikiquote articles should be comprehensible to any reader, not just fans of each subject. They should follow formatting and structure guidelines for articles of their type, not use something so novel that it will leave the average reader bewildered. This is a common problem when editors add quotes, so you are in good company. (I am constantly trying to get Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans, of which I am one, to avoid dumping whole scenes and MSTie-only knowledge into that article.) There are probably many places where Warcraft can be quoted, discussed, and dissected by fans with plenty of inside knowledge, but this isn't one of them.
If you haven't already, you might take a look at User:Jaxl/Warcraft. Robert's severely trimmed version of this article achieves three major Wikiquote goals:
  • It pares the content down to a select set of pithy quotes. (I'm not saying it must be this small, but it should be kept to a reasonable percentage and should focus on unique and interesting quotes, not just stuff people say.)
  • It is organized by work (game) and provides source information (with scenes) that allow readers to more easily verify the information.
  • It uses standard wiki formatting, avoiding HTML markup wherever possible.
In short, this article can be understood, edited, and verified by the wider Wikiquote readership, and avoids copyvio. These elements are essential to make Wikimedia articles useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A Response

My apologies, in regard to the page titled Kenneth Lyle Miley. I should have taken more time to review procedures before creating the page. Also, thank you for all of the information you listed on my Talk page. Regards, Knssilm 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. This is a not-uncommon mistake. I hope that you'll work with us to create and improve our articles in addition to posting your own quotes on your user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I deffinetly intend on making such contributions! Again, thanks for your help. Knssilm 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Physics quotes

Hi, Based on my reading of your page it doesn't seem like you're a big whig in the world of physics. For this reason I don't think you should be the one deciding whether or not someone is of sufficient notoriety to have a page posted on wikiquote. Whether or not you find a physicist on google/wikipedia is irrelevant as to their importance. Have a look in some journals and you'll see the excellent contribution that he/she has made to the academic community.

I won't involve myself with fashionistas in the tie-dye world as it would most certainly not be appreciated. Please leave editing of physics related content to people who know a thing or two about physics. Thank you very much. Jkrabbe 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be misunderstanding some things about Wikiquote (and Wikimedia projects in general), as well as making an unfounded assumption based on appearances. To wit:
  • Personal testimony, regardless of the person testifying, is totally irrelevant when providing sources or proving notability. If someone claiming to be "Richard A. Muller" vouched for the notability of a physicist, we would not consider this a valid argument. We have no way of knowing who is who on Wikimedia. All we care about is cited evidence, none of which existed in the article Zbigniew W. Gortel, and none of which you have provided in your objection above.
  • We routinely find students creating articles on their professors purely from lectures, which with few exceptions cannot be reliably sourced. Your article gave no information about the subject, and we had no Wikipedia article to help us with this. A Google search suggested this professor (from the University of Alberta, correct?) has not yet achieved enough prominence to pass Wikimedia notability guidelines. (I've never seen a subject with a Google count below 100 that can justify a Wikimedia article.) All of this indicated a reasonable speedy-deletion as an unremarkable subject. (Please note that this is wiki shorthand and does not mean that the person is literally unremarkable, just that they don't pass the notability test.)
  • Notability of a subject ultimately is not decided by a single person, whether it be a Wikiquote sysop or a professional in the relevant field. What matters is published evidence. LrdChaos and I have earned the ability to summarily delete articles that seem to have little hope of meeting Wikiquote requirements, within specific guidelines and limitations. But if you have arguable evidence to back up a claim of notability and to allow Wikiquotians to verify the quotes, we can restore the article for a full deletion discussion.
  • Finally, you should not assume the contents of a person's user page are a definitive description of the person. Many Internet-savvy editors, especially experienced Wikimedians, take care to conceal pertinent facts about themselves, even including harmless but misleading information. You might be interested to know that one amusing side benefit of my image is that it frequently causes people to make erroneous assumptions about me. In real life, I am not someone anyone would expect to wear a tie-dyed shirt. (I won't be any more specific than that, other than to tell you that I most certainly do "know a thing or two about physics".)
If you have any questions about the above information, I would be happy to answer them and/or direct you to sources of further information. Thank you for your understanding. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nacho Libre

Thanks for the help and explanation, today. I am still not sure how I went wrong, but I understand the difference between what I did and what I was supposed to do. Will the original thing I created be deleted? Do I have to delete it or can you? Thanks again for the help, this is my first wiki editing experience. Trugre Jeff-O

Your "original thing" is already history. (Literally, in fact — it can only be seen in the edit history of Wikiquote:Templates/Films.) Be sure to take a look at the "Welcome" message above for more information on wiki editing. For example, signing and timestamping your talk-page posts is much easier if you simply end your post with four tildes, as described above, which the wiki edit window converts to your linked username and a date and time when you "save page". Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing and...

thanks you for welcoming me here. I love your site. Very informing and I enjoy helping add info to people's sites.

Date format

Jeff, I have a question for you regarding the format of birth and death dates for people pages. It seems to me that there are several different formats floating around out there, and we don't have consistency any more. I have seen plain old dates (such as May 15, 1969), dates in a different order (such as 15 May 1969), dates with wikilinks (such as May 15, 1969), and even wiki-linked dates in a diffferent order (such as 1969-05-15) - I happen to hate this fourth option, as I don't like the way it looks on the page. The template does not really specify which of these four formats (or others that may exist) should be used. The same could be said for the formats of individual sourced quotes. Bottom line, we should have a consistent way to do this, but I'm not sure what that is. If I had to choose, I think I would either opt for this: May 15, 1969 or this: 15 May 1969. Any thoughts? ~ UDScott 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between dates of the form May 15 and 15 May has often been explained on Wikipedia as a difference between US and British versions of English, the former being US and the latter British. I doubt any attempt to bring consistency would succeed. As for wikilinking, date links are useful when hunting out QOTD nominations. Year links are more difficult. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
UDScott, I am deducing from your post that you do not have a date-format preference set in "my preferences", because all of the wiki-linked dates look the same to me — "15 May 1969" with blue links around the month-date and year. If you play with that a bit, you'll see the main reason we bother with wiki date linking.
Wikipedia established this system to allow readers choose their own way to display dates, which vary considerably between nations, even in the English-speaking world. In fact, speaking as an American, I've seen my compatriots use "May 15, 1969", "15 May 1969", "1969 May 15", and "1969-05-15", as well as the common "5/15/1969" or "05/15/1969".
One of the pressing issues at Wikiquote is how to fill in the year articles to make it possible to wiki-format dates like WP without leaving ugly red links for years everywhere. I'm afraid I don't see this happening any time soon unless and until I regain my steam, or someone else with plenty of time and energy tackles this non-trivial issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, color me embarrassed. I hadn't even thought about that. Never mind. I'm certainly in favor of using wiki-links though. Thanks for clearing up my confusion! ~ UDScott 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. One thing, though — I wouldn't recommend changing any in-text dates to YYYY-MM-DD format, as this is reader-unfriendly to anyone who doesn't have preferences set, which includes all unregistered users. (YYYY-MM-DD isn't so bad for citations, as they're concentrated info anyway and don't need to flow like prose.) You might also note that there is disagreement among the other frequent editors who've discussed wiki-linking dates. I support it, in anticipation of eventually having a reasonable set of year articles, but others (my beleagured brain isn't firing properly at the moment, but I think LrdChaos was one) feel the partial formatting isn't worth the ugliness of red links (not to mention the encouragement for folks to create bogus articles from them). I doubt we'll move on this much until we get those year articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote Simple English

This is a odd request, but can you become more active on wikiquote simple english. The project is in serious need of more articles. If the reason why you do not want to become a active editor is because it is up for deletion, well, that is not a great reason because I am going to try to get it undeleted if it gets deleted. Have a nice week.--Sir James Paul 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request for assistance in building up Simple-English Wikiquote isn't odd at all. However, I don't feel I have the bandwidth necessary to do any work on SE Wikiquote just now. (I'm not even doing en:WQ justice at the moment.) Furthermore, as I've said in the discussion about closing SE WQ, I don't believe we can make a proper Wikimedia project out of SE WQ because its intent appears to be to explain quotes, and Wikimedia editors are not supposed to interpret things — they are required to write only what they have reliable sources for. (This would require that each quote include a source for the interpretation, not just a SE WQ user claiming a particular interpretation. Based on my long experience at en:WQ and en:WP, I don't think this has a snowball's chance of happening.)
The only potential I see for SE WQ is to cast it as a standard Wikiquote with simpler prose for the non-quote material (e.g., policy pages, article intros, maybe even a simple sourcing format). In that situation, there may be some way to automate the routine updating of quotes from en:WQ to SE WQ, leaving the simple-English prose untouched. But this would take considerable work, so I'm not interested in pursuing this unless and until the Wikimedia community decides the fate of SE WQ.
As far as getting SE WQ undeleted if it is voted down, I once again urge you to learn about Wikimedia before you charge into these situations. The only rationale for deletion reviews is if the deletion was done outside policy. Even if this happens, it is very likely that any case you attempt to bring will not be taken seriously because you have demonstrated virtually no understanding of the Wikimedia world. (Sorry to be so blunt, but my earlier communications seem not to have been blunt enough to register.) You would serve your cause much better to get a more seasoned WM editor, who supports your cause, to lead the effort. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How come I don't see anywhere how to create a new page?

I was looking and looking and couldn't find. The page "Dignity" in wikiquotes. I also couldn't quite understand why the page "Disability" has "dignity" and other concepts in its content, whereas those concepts can be separate pages and they have nothing to do with "disability" concept? Please look! Abuhar 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your three questions:
  • Some information on creating articles can be found in the links provided in the welcome message I posted to you. The most convenient means to create a theme article is by using the "Add new theme" input box in Help:Starting a new page. That help page is mentioned at the top of Wikiquote:How to edit a page, and that link is in the next-to-last bulleted suggestion in the welcome message. It may seem a bit indirect, but new editors really should read a little about Wikiquote before they start editing.
  • There is no Dignity article here because no one has gotten around to creating it. This is not unusual for en:Wikiquote, which is a tiny community compared to en:Wikipedia.
  • The Disability article appears to be horribly off-topic at this point. I just deleted the "Dignity" section because, as you said, its quotes had no obvious connection to the article subject. This is also a common problem for WQ. We have so few frequent editors who are committed to the principles of Wikiquote that they have a hard time keeping up with the irrelevant information that is often added to articles.
Since we have no "dignity" article yet, you are welcome to create one. I would ask, however, that you first read the various pages mentioned in my welcome message to get a feel for what articles should contain and how they should be constructed. Wikiquote:Templates/Themes shows the basic structure of a theme article. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jeff, I will read the rules and will try my best to organize some stuff to which I have some knowledge. Abuhar 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What wikiquote simple english is

The idea of it is to have a quote, and then under it have the same quote but replace hard to understand words with simple ones. Can you please consider changing your vote. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode headings for empty sections issue in TV show articles

Here's a problem I've encountered when editing Queer as Folk (US TV series),a page for a tv show that has numbered episodes instead of titled episodes and only a few episode sections have content yet.

Some quoted episodes had titles in a previous edit, but when I wanted to add more quotes and researched titles for episodes, I found that the titles weren't official episode titles, but rather titles given by TWOP. Both Showtime's official QAF site and IMDB list episodes by number, without any titles. So I removed the unofficial titles and changed the episode titles to numbered episodes I have of episodes. I haven't gotten around to adding many quotes to the article yet, but I found that when I left out headings for unquoted episodes, the TOC becomes ambiguous and opens up the possibility for quotes being inadvertently added to the wrong episode sections. For example, currently some season 1 episodes are quoted, but other episodes aren't quoted yet. When I remove the headings for unquoted episodes, wiki still automatically numbers headings in the TOC, and that results in a TOC for season 1 that looks something like this:

1 Season 1
1.1 "Pilot" [Episode 101]
1.2 [Episode 102]
1.3 [Episode 105]
1.4 [Episode 106]
1.5 [Episode 108]
1.6 [Episode 112]
1.7 [Episode 114]
1.8 [Episode 118]
1.9 [Episode 122]

Granted, people should make sure they are adding a quote to the correct episode section. But I think people will tend to pay more attention to the numbers that appear first in each subheading rather than the number of the actual episode, and will inadvertently do something like click on "1.3" and place Episode 103 quotes in the Episode 105 section. This will result in misquoted episodes and editing frustration for anyone trying to verify and correct these errors. Scrolling through a lot of headings for quoteless numbered episodes is a bit annoying, but if I have to choose between the lesser of two annoyances, scrolling is the one I prefer.

Is there a better solution to this issue? d0minique 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise a very good question. I agree with you about not using Television Without Pity's names. As amusing as they can be, they aren't official.
I'm afraid I don't have a magic bullet for the numbering problem. (I'd hoped there might be a way to turn off the auto-numbering for standard TOCs, but I haven't found it yet.) Besides the two alternatives you give (confusing numbering for only non-empty sections, or full headings with lots of empty sections), I would add using the original airdates as a "title", but I'm not sure that's any better. It comes down to determining how the episodes are normally identified, and it seems this show doesn't really care about memorably stamping its episodes. Unless someone else has a better idea, it looks like you get to pioneer Wikiquote's approach to such shows. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to this mention this before- Tivo can also be an inaccurate sourse for episode titles. Instead of using the official titles, episode numbers, for this show's episode titles, it used its own titles which summarized the episode.
Original airdates as titles might be a little more descriptive, but I'm not sure they would be especially helpful, particularly for shows that aren't currently in production and are now in syndication and/or on DVD.
Aside from making a fundamental formatting change to how wiki handles TOC or making a separate template for TV shows with numbered episode titles, perhaps using unnumbered lists, I haven't seen a way to get around the auto-numbering, either. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I don't think making a new template would work very well- either new editors might be confused on which template to use or people will just ignore it and continue to use the standard TV show template. It would be nice if there was some sort of heading markup that could be used to turn off numbering in the TOC for cases like this, with heading remaining numbered in the TOC by default unless this additional markup was used. Maybe someone's already addressed this issue in a wiki markup talk page somewhere. At any rate, for now, although my solution isn't the nicest one to look at, since it involves scrolling through content-less space, it does at least promote accuracy and ease in editing. While I'd rather be able to fully satisfy all the goals of an article looking nice, being accurate, and easily edited, if I can't do that, I think accuracy is worth a little scrolling and cosmetic sacrifice.
Btw, I crossposted the original formatting issue question on the Templates/TV shows talk page, and I'm crossposting my above reply to your talk page, my talk page, and Templates/TV shows discussion. If anyone else is interested in how tv show articles are formatted and encounters the same issue, they'll be more likely to see it discussed on the Templates/TV shows talk page than on either of our user talk pages. d0minique 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

multiple attacks in October

Hi, Jeff Q. I am sorry I couldn't responce your inquire about vandalism in October as meta-Wikiquote folk. I have no idea why I could miss it (the page has been in my watchlist); I could believe other RC patrol folks would have offered help. Again, apologies. Was it already solved? Is there anything new (e.g. policies) related to that issue, like Checkuser policy? Is there something I can do?

Also, I didn't notice Jimbo removed quotes from a page. I also believe he acted just regarding in a long term. French Wikiquote was closed in this April, in May its remembrance was more clear than now ...... is there any change about our citing policy regarding to living / copyright unexpired people & works? If so, I will very appreciate your recommendations the pages one must read to know the policy around this issue.

Cheers, --Aphaia 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I long ago gave up on meta:Vandalism reports after no one responded to my well-researched, well-documented attempt to organize a cross-project response to this vandal. I saw no reason to follow up, given that the vandal clearly reads our vandalism reports as well, and pursuing assistance without response only amuses him while frustrating us. We have been handling things adequately. We still aren't using Checkuser, to my knowledge. I don't know if we have two regular, network-knowledgeable editors here interested in requesting it for en:WQ. (I might in the future, but I have been working at a reduced level for several months, and do not wish to add responsibilities at this time.)
I have no problem with Jimbo deleting material from absurdly long articles, except that I am embarrassed that he needs to do so. We regular editors have been taking a harder stance against excessive quotation and the use of copyrighted material, but we still have a long way to go before our community puts enough effort into this work. Wikiquote is definitely growing, but it's still adding infrequent editors who don't care about copyright faster than conscientious editors who do care. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why hello

Why HELLO JEFFQ HOW HAVE YOU BEEN DOING WELL I HAVE BEEN OCCUPIING MY TIME VERY WELL IM BACK THO PLEASE REPLY THANKS REVENGA2 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY BACK FATASS. -- REVENGA3 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your help and clarification:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deletion_of_Quotations_for_Wikiquote

I am relatively new to Wiki and have to admit that I didn't go through the rules befor posting the quotation. So you are absolutely right to have deleted the quotations as I did put it up in error. I meant to post some favorite quotations (both by notable figures and some that I have come up with) on the site to create a sort of a 'permanent file' in the public domain that I could then reference.

As you mentioned, its best to do that in my user page. Being new to this, I didn't know this at the time. So my apologies for all the hassle it created! I hadn't logged in since joining a while ago so didn't see the comments till recently.

But thank you again for your help and happy holidays!

Freedomskr 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Sami

Hello, Pete Doherty quotes

Hey there,

I'm the person who has been editing the Pete Doherty quotes. I have hundreds of articles on Pete Doherty and his bands (most with cited sources) saved on a Microsoft Word document on my computer. That's where I've been reading through articles and searching for quotes. :)

24.174.166.154 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Linnea

Could you please add the sources that you have to the quotes? They would greatly help editors verify and correct quotes, an essential part of our quote compliation process. And it would also help to identify information that may not be obvious to non-fans, like what "NME" means. (Many editors who research quote origins and verify material are not experts on the subject, but are just confirming that the material matches what the sources say.) Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)