Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Please also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.

Click here to create an account.


You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions to Wikiquote. If you want to appeal this block, add the following tag: {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}
If using the above tag does not help, either an administrator may have declined the request after the unblock request was reviewed by an administrator or you may have been blocked from editing your talk page.
GMGtalk 11:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Facts relevant to this block
1) This wikiquotian has done his best to follow wikiquote policy at all times and has never intentionally broken any rules.

2) Suddenly on 14 March 2022, Aphaia, a Japanese Wikiquotian/admin who has spent very little time at wikiquotes English, 'came out of nowhere' and began deleting with no discussion quotes on around 14 pages that i had added in the preceding days/weeks/months. The deleted quotes had almost surely been inspected and viewed as acceptable by one or more of the regular admins or bureaucrats who are here everyday. That seems an important point to note. It makes one wonder, is anyone policing the police here or have some parts of the project gone to hell?

Aphaia quite suddenly & without any warning deleted lots of materia. He/she also did the exact opposite of what is called for in the "assume good faith policy" and blocked me for a year, with no discussion or chance to defend my actions. Aphaia alleged that this wikiquotian was functioning with bad intentions and wrote "account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: also disruption w/ false information / suspecting Russian propaganda). Truth of the matter was that this wikiquotian had been functioning with good intentions all along, and was shocked by this "admin's" sudden, extreme, censorship & pushing of his/her own POV in those actions.

3) Up until that point, none of the regular admins in this project, had indicated after many edits/posts that they found my work offensive. There were a few corrections by friendly admins/bureaucrats who advised me, and I always welcomed their input & responded promptly, cooperatively & respectfully.

4) It should be noted that "WQ Username policy" states: "Using multiple user accounts: It is recommended that users not edit under multiple usernames, unless they have a very good reason." There is no further elaboration in the username policy. In my view - my desire to work anonymously were "very good reasons". I did not think I was fooling anyone. There were no faked conversations between any of the usernames that were under my control (apparently that's one of the major objections to 'sockpuppetry'on wikipedia). None of that was none of that taking place under my hand. I've always believed the admins & bureaucrats here can with relative ease see when people are using multiple user names & believed that the 'regular' admins & bureacrats here assumed good faith wherever it seemed appropriate, as part of their routine. Considering that the rules indicated that it is ok to use multiple user accounts, Being labeled a "sockpuppet" and spoken of with contempt, by a very destructive self proclaimed "wikiquotion" (who has been pushing his POV very hard - while claiming to be fighting POV pushing), and having been blocked by an "admin" of questionable authority, does not seem to reflect well on the WQ community.

5) With Jimmy Wale's quote: "Ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules.", I worked under the good faith assumption that if any admins/bureaucrats had any issues with my approach that they would not hesitate to inform/warn/advise me. It was my practice & plan to definitely accept/follow any advice offered by admins or bureaucrats to the best of my ability.

6) In summary, it seems that rules have been ignored & broken by at least one admin. It does not seem that justice has been served with this block. Some would say it was apparently politically motivated & is a case of censorship & disrespect for wikipedia's principles.

I don't know, but do believe everyone is doing the best they know/can based on their particular version of reality. It's great to see the old world systems that are ruled by corrupt jerks who routinely piss on principles like justice, truth & democracy - more evident now than ever before & falling apart, as it must, with some significant help from wikipedia, despite the room for improvement, and natural lack of harmony and agreement on interpretations of the rules intended to govern this operation. It's sad that a few in power tend to push out productive people here, apparently so that the establishment's POV can be pushed. That will pass & everything will be worked out in time. The corrupt elements here & everywhere are sure to eventually be removed.
All the best to everyone. 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked. 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • P.S. Please note that admin "Aphaia" who initiated this negative action against me (apparently not in accordance with WP rules), describes self as a "Japanese Wikiquotian" but has been "blocked indefinitely" from Japanese WP since 2007:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Aphaia "This user has been blocked indefinitely. For further information, please see RfB pages on Sep. 2, 2007 and on November 26, 2007." Seems significant. I know i'm in no position to make any demands, but may i suggest that you undo that block against me in good faith & the assorted log in names all used in lawfully in good faith too, and maybe allow me to use just one username... maybe 'Will-SeymoreIII'. Thoughts? It's been good to get away. Hope ya'll are having a good, productive time. May the force of goodness be with you.
Thanks 16:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Larry Sanger Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created (December 2021)


Watch/listen: ((youtube) Read: Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created, Unherd, (Dec 2021)

  • If only one version of the facts is... allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like wikipedia in order to... shore up... their power and they do that.
  • There are sort of teams of democrat leading editors... i think that there are a lot of people who would be highly motivated to go in and and make the article more neutral more politically neutral but um they're not allowed... it's quite remarkable considering that the neutrality policy is still in place....
  • It now represents a particular political viewpoint over all politics... that not just political... wikipedia is pretty reliably establishment in its viewpoint...which is ironic considering it's... origins from a couple of libertarians... who... in the beginning were really tolerant and open to all sorts of anti-establishment views
  • Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
    • As quoted in "Wikimedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds," by Robin "Roblimo" Miller, Slashdot (28 July 2004)
  • I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think.
  • Ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules.
  • The primary issue is how seriously we take our chosen obligations to people in the developing world who do not have Internet connections. … Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so..
    • Wiki Foundation-l mailing list (23 October 2005)}}