User talk:Aphaia/Archive01

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Aphaia in topic Category Suggestion
Archivus Usoris Disputationum Aphaeae

Just making a note of thanks for all the interlang links you have been making. I hope you are liking many of the quotes that you encounter along the way. ~ Kalki 17:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. Indeed I enjoy browsing English Wikiquote :) --Aphaia 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have been nominated for adminship edit

  • I have recently nominated you, and three other users who have been active at Wikiquote for adminship. The opportunity for voting and comments must last a week before any actions can be taken. Please post your response at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship. Thanks for all your help. ~ Kalki 13:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I replied for you on that page, but let me appliciate you on your remark on my activities and nomination, whatever the result will be.;-) Btw, during making interlang between proverbs, i found Polish Wikiquote reached 1,000 articles. Cheers, --Aphaia 23:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote, and for all the interlang links you continue to create. I do feel it is an important part of developing all the projects. ~ Kalki 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sysop interface edit

from User talk:Jeffq#Broaden your suspicions
Sorry for interruption. As for MediaWiki sysop interface, it is quite easy as same as ordinary editor's one. You will get some new bottons (like [rollback] or [protect]) and that's all. If you would like to glance them, please see w:fr:Wikipédia:Administrateur/Tableau de bord de l'administrateur, one of four admin tutorial pages on French Wikipedia with full of snapshots of admin interface. (would you think it would be useful when it is tranlated into English? ) Cheers, --Aphaia 06:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Aphaia — even en français! (It'll be fun using my rusty French to read it.) I wasn't particularly concerned just yet about sysop functions, as I felt it would be jumping the gun unless and until I'd been approved as an admin. Are you saying that there is no English equivalent for that useful page? If not, I could probably translate it for en:Wikipedia, if it's not already in progress. Meanwhile, I came across Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, so I suspect I'll be able to figure out the basics fairly quickly. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Having good administrators is one of important things to develop the project ;-) And thank you for your interest, Jeff Q. As far as I know, there is no English equivalent. It would be great if we have it in English and you will help it! Would you like translation privately, on English Wikipedia or somewhere?
Administrators' reading is a good stuff for administrators in my opinion. How do you think we have it on English Wikiquote too or at laest put a link to it on Wikiquote:Administrators? --Aphaia 20:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for admin shortcut idea edit

I noticed you adding a "Categorize articles" shortcut to your user page. The syntax answered some questions I'd had about creating useful shortcut links. It inspired me to create a short page full of terse links for administrative functions. Thanks for the idea! — Jeff Q (talk) 21:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sysop edit

Congratulation! You are now a sysop here! Thanks for all the work recently, and as I already pointed out to Jeff Q, I can now certainly no longer claim to be the most active sysop here. Unfortunately I will probably be very busy for at least a few more days, and then can hopefully engage in things here a bit more fully. All of you have been doing great work! ~ Kalki 18:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and congratulations for your bureaucrat promotion! Now you can claim to be "the most active bureaucrat" *g
Having good sysops are a key to project development. I think it is the best policy all active and trusted regular have sysop previledges.
I expect to be a good sysop and enjoy activities on the project with all of you! --Aphaia 00:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you would have been justified to simply remove the Speedy deletion tag with an explanation in the edit summary. With the low level of deletions around here --so far-- it doesn't interfere with Vfd operations to relist it though. Rmhermen 15:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Honestly I confess I believed so ;-) But I would have liked to start in a way as moderate as possible I could be. And sorry for making VfD bulky. --Aphaia 04:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion edit

Yeah, I thought about deleting those categories while I was db'ing them, but I was doing so many things at one time that I was worried about getting confused. I figured someone would take care of them shortly, and if not, I'd get to them in a day or two. Thanks for the note! — Jeff Q (talk) 12:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem, as for those two redundant categories I've deleted them. Thank you for your reply ;-) --Aphaia 13:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achilles -Thanks edit

I replied on my own talk page, but decided I should also probably reply here:

Thanks for the inquiry as to my interest, but for now I will decline. The existing group of sysops seem to be doing a fine job, and I might occasionally prefer to be a bit more blunt or harsh with some people than might be proper for someone speaking in any "official" capacity as representative of the project. I plan to remain active here on at least an intermittent basis, and check things out, but I probably shouldn't be relied upon to be constantly involved. ~ Achilles 18:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD "former discussions" edit

How do you think to remove all former discussions from those deletion "candidates"? --Aphaia 10:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I copied your question over here from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion because I couldn't understand it, and it seemed to be out of place, so I thought I'd ask you directly about it first.

Do you mean, when should we remove each finished deletion vote to the archive? (I've raised that question at WQt:DP#When to move to archive.) Are you talking about a technical problem with these pages' Talk (discussion) pages? In any case, unless the question relates to a specific VfD entry, it should probably be on a Talk page, if I understand the VfD structure correctly. (Right now, your "Comments" section looks like a Talk page entry, and the editing system makes it appear to be part of the "Death By Stereo" VfD vote.) Might I suggest moving your question to Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy? If it's not one of the topics I've already started, you can start a new topic to discuss your question. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. I admit it was a bid rude but I thought it was allowable for a short discussion. I woudln't oppose to move VfD talk page; indeed it is the appropriate place. Therefore I'll answer your questions on Project talk:Deletion policy soon after. Cheers, --Aphaia 06:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think it was rude — just not where one might expect it to be. I'm a firm believer in keeping discussions for posterity (since, in a rapidly-growing medium like Wikiquote, at any given time, most of the people reading articles are new, so they benefit from reading old discussions). But that's harder to do when the discussions take place inside regular articles, even adminstrative ones like WQ:VFD. I think that's one of the reasons we archive VfDs. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aphaia, now that we have the discussion going on at WQ:DP, could you remove your Comment posting at the bottom of the VFD page? It will get lost in the middle of the VfDs if we create a link to make it easy for people to add a new entry at the bottom, and we probably don't want to encourage discussion on that page anyway. Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reirom VfD edit

Aphaia, Kalki, Rmhermen: I'd like to ask you folks to review the Reirom VfD. I think we've given it enough time for a decision, especially since the Wikipedia article has been deleted as well. I'd do it myself, but I've been too involved in researching its legitimacy and policing for sockpuppets and now forged signatures (two of which I just removed). I'd like a more neutral admin to consider its state. Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gumba vandal edit

Cool! He is also vandalizing at Meta, as you have probably noticed all ready. I posted a notice to w:WP:AN/I asking for help from my fellow en admins, see that page for future info about his movements across projects.

I strongly recommend you do an infinite block instead of 24 hour one, all edits were clearly done in bad faith. jni 17:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and complement. I would however like to give him a chance to be nice. If he is back and change his mind, it would be happier for all of us. But if he seems to keep a bad faith, I think none of our sysop team let him make vandalism or any other rant. --Aphaia 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks on my behalf, too; I was in that episode, and have made an account now... Andrew Walkingshaw 17:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good, waving off then edit

Jolly good. I'll go back to my regularly scheduled wiki and leave the vandal-busting to you. Good luck! :-)

Kim Bruning / 17:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries in VfD nominations edit

Could you make a point to include the name of the articles you nominate for VfD in the edit summary when you create new entries? When you add a new entry by editing VFD#Boilerplate or another VfD entry without changing the edit summary, it puts the wrong text in the VfD history, making it hard to determine when a VfD was started. The problem will go away if we adopt the "Add a new deletion request" link in Wikiquote:Proposed Votes for deletion, but in the meantime, it'd be helpful to check this before saving. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind notice. I'll try to forget your instruction. --Aphaia 06:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Did you mean "not forget", by chance? lol. ;-) jni 08:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spammers... edit

You seem to be here, please check's edits! Also see RC in Meta! jni 08:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice and reverting. I'll soon look Meta. --Aphaia 08:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. The spammer in Meta could be a same kind of a bot, I have seen the same editing pattern before. BTW, I wouldn't have blocked a shared IP for one year, maybe for few days/weeks at maximum. Reason being that the block might hamper legitimate users that by accident happen to share the same address with the vandal/spammer. Just something to consider when thinking about a new blocking policy for Wikiquote. jni 08:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I agree on that we are better to discuss further appropriate length of blocking. Your opinion on Village pump will be appreciated. --Aphaia 10:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link correction edit

Thank you for the correction on my user page link; it was still in the old style (very, very old style).

Basil Fawlty 21:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy renewed Wikiquote ;-) --Aphaia 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objection to "Deletion policy" edits edit

Aphaia, I have serious objections to your refactoring of the Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy material. Talk pages don't exist solely for the immediate discussion of their topics, but also serve as a means for readers and editors who were not immediately involved in the discussions to see how such policies developed, so we don't have to repeat these arguments again and again. Summarization should follow these discussions, not take their place. Furthermore, from a personal point of view, I take considerable time and effort to choose every word I include in my comments, not only to make my points, but also with the new reader in mind, who I hope will find my occasional verbosity useful in trying to gain an understanding of a topic they are only reading about long after it has been established. Your trimming down of these comments sacrifices botht the historical utility and the completeness of the discussions.

I know you're trying to make it easier to see the results, but these discussions must be preserved for the community, not just summarized for the sake of those who participated in them. Once the decisions are made and left to stand for a while, we can archive them to leave room for more, but we shouldn't require people to hunt through page histories to read how these things developed.

Unless you beat me to it, I plan to restore all the discussions you edited. I will attempt to collect your additions in a logical manner after the earlier discussion, to convey your intent as best I understand it, although it would be better (and perhaps more accurate) for you to do so before I attempt it.

Sorry to be a pain about this, but in our haste to build up and improve Wikiquote procedures, we can't afford to sacrifice clarity and completeness. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your close opinion, I am sorry for my hasteness, and very sorry if I hurted you. I apologize I tried to refactor discussion without any consent in advance. Perhaps you found I have a different opinion; I think every (important) discussion on wiki should be refactored and summarized and in my opinion it is a way to keep it newbie-friendly. But I admit willingly it was not the time yet to refactor it. Later I try to restore the version I edited lately. Cheers, --Aphaia 08:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection before deletion? edit

From User talk:Jeffq#Protection before deletion?:

Hi, Jeff Q, I agree with Jni and "protection before deletion" is unnecessary. I think it is unrecommendable too. Once a protected article was deleted, the newly created article under the same name wouldn't be protected. So the protection log becomes easily very confused; there could be "protected" pages but really unprotected. To know which pages are really protected, such situation is not welcomed, I am afraid. --Aphaia 09:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aphaia, the protection log cannot be used to determine what pages are currently protected, because, as you point out, any pages that are deleted don't register this fact in the log. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says right up front that you are supposed to protect a page that hasn't been deleted because of block-compression errors. When those pages get deleted, they can be recreated, so unless the developers (or whoever does the BCE cleanup) unprotect each page before deleting it, the log will always be somewhat out-of-sync. I was under the impression that the protection log, like all other logs, is primarily a record of who did what to whom and when, to allow others to review problems with the process or with the participants. It is a record of past actions, not a state machine. The only reliable way for a non-developer to know if a page is protected, I suspect, is to bring up the page and see if your navigation tabs show "protect" or "unprotect".

Also, you yourself suggested a reason to follow the process I describe, when you mentioned in WQ:DP#Deletion pending how people might forget to tag failed deletes with a pending-deletion tag/category link. As I explained in my 01:58, 16 April posting in that section, my process allows us to use the same steps for every delete and be finished with the last step every time, whether the delete succeeds or fails. There's no more work to do, so we can't forget to do it. And there's no change in procedure, so we can't do the wrong thing for one deletion by accident when plowing through a long list of deletions. It actually prevents mistakes.

In my further discussions on this topic on Jni's talk page, I got the impression that Jni neither approved nor disapproved of this practice. He seemed to think it might be unnecessary and slightly wasteful. But I've made a case that it helps prevent problems without taking any significant time or resources, and that the log issue is irrelevant because the log already can't be relied upon to provide current page status. I may still be in the minority on this useful process, but I hope that everyone will consider the advantages. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't approve as you already read, nor disapprove if you keep it your personal practice. But I hope you recognize your "protect and then deletion" policy makes it harder to create a list of protected pages, unless I missed the already exisiting page.
As for the purpose of log I agree with you, it serves primarily to record who did what in a certain moment, and admit that tt is my personal inclination to keep logs and pages as compact as possible.
I add "pending tag" is one way to keep the track, so not necessary things. It is one possible way to keep a heap of such "compress" victims and we have another track on VfD (and soon later on archive). And you needn't protect newly (hence after the object compress on last December) created pages. So as current conclusion, though I think you succeeded in making the deletion procedures simpler, but I find still disadvantages of wasteness, regretfully. --Aphaia 16:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings edit

Shortly enjoy! By the way, if I may ask, are you a same person to ShaunMacPherson on meta? --Aphaia 21:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aphaia, I am indeed the same from Wikipedia and Meta, have we met before? I just came to Wikiquote a few days ago, should get my page up too. I might have to go register at all the Wikipedia to reserve my nick :o).

Since quotes are short blurbs we might be able to automate the process of colating quotes/aphorisms from the internet too, then sorting them.

Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 01:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD page reordering and ja: interwiki link edit

When I saw that you added the "new request" link to VFD, I reordered the list into oldest-to-newest, since the link puts new candidates at the bottom. When I did that, I noticed that the "ja:" interwiki link showed three questions marks (???) instead of Japanese characters in my Edit window. Could you check that link to make sure I didn't break it? (It does go to a wiki page in Japanese, I guess, but I certainly can't read it to know if it's the correct one!) Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It works well. Don't mind. --Aphaia 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stepping on your blocking edit

I have to apologize — I apparently stepped on your indefinite blocking of Beano4 by changing it to 30 days. I should have checked to see if it had already been blocked, and I hadn't realized I could just change the length by re-blocking. If you think an indefinite block is more appropriate, I have no problem with you or me changing it back. Sorry about the confusion. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind; If I recall correctly, your blocking didn't override mine, because the longer one is applied. If you said you once unblock him and then put a month blocking, things go differently (in this case 30 days blocking is applied).
I suppose it would be nice for us all to have Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard to deal with those issues (how long blocking is appropriate etc.) --Aphaia 09:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good idea about creating WQ:AN! About overriding blocks, my remembrance is just opposite: when the shortest one expires, the account is unblocked and all longer outstanding blocks have no effect. It was long ago when I last checked this, so it might have been changed. jni 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey the spammer (talk · contributions) activated again! jni 09:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blocked. Thank you for your notice! --Aphaia 09:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thaks! And there's new one currently at Meta... jni 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aphaia, I see you blocked for another 24 hours. Shouldn't we escalate this to a longer block, based on the concerted effort coming from here to vandalize a second time? And what does listing on m:Spam blacklist actually do? I'm sorry to say that I was not surprised to find no explanation, either on the main page or its Talk page, of what actually happens when something is listed on it. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 09:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think we could his blocking longer - attacks twice a day are worthy to receive such sanction.
As for blacklist, I listed the spammed url, not his IP; no one can write down the urls listed on there to the Foudation wikis and other sites which share this list. So blocking duration is not changed; only it became impossible to write the url he spammed onto our sites and to save. Further information is available on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --Aphaia 09:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jeff, Nothing happens when something is listed on it, but once an URL is there, no one cannot press the "Save page" button when the URL is included in the to-be-saved text (not even sysops, you can try that!). This applies globally to all pages on all projects that share the list. I don't know where the format is documented, but it seems to be a straightforward one based on Unix regular expressions. jni 09:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The format is "documented" — at least, it mentions a regexp pattern (without my handy link to help a C/Unix/Perl newbie) — but somebody forgot to mention anywhere on the page what happens once a URL is listed. ☺ Thanks to both of you for the explanation. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thanks! edit

It would be indeed beneficial if I could deal with the Asspus vandal and other recurring problematic users without going to look for you or some other sysop from Meta or from some other wiki. This particular vandal has now interrupted my normal editing several days in a row. Therefore, if you would be willing to nominate me for adminship, I gladly accept. I can also post a self-request, but being nominated by a more senior Wikiquotian would be an honour. Best, jni 08:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your acceptance, and I am honored to receive your request. Soon I will nominate you as a sysop candidate. I appreciate you on that. --Aphaia 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User page move blocking edit

Thanks for the proactive protection, Aphaia. Ordinarily I might object on a policy basis (I think there's something about not doing this except when really necessary, at least on WP), but even if there is, we're too short-handed at the moment to give this resourceful vandal a chance to repeat his already-proven vandalism techniques. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about protecting some of the key infrastructure pages against moves? Like Village Pump, Community Portal, VFD, and VIP for starters. Nobody should ever move a central page like Village Pump to a new name without discussion first, so this kind of protection does not hinder any normal users. jni 11:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. Jni's idea is interesting but it is a community issue. So I copied & pasted your words to WQ:AN. Would you like to discuss this issue or not?--Aphaia 15:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Aphaia 15:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Aphaia. I see that you were hit by the page-moving idiot because you didn't protect your own user pages, no doubt because you didn't want to be perceived as abusing sysop privileges. I've belatedly returned the favor you did the rest of the sysops. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your protection on this page and others. Perhaps we need to protect more pages ... --Aphaia 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've completed protecting all current admins' user and talk pages and made a note of this at Wikiquote:Protected page. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pirates edit

Could you rename Pirates Of The Caribbean to either Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl or Pirates of the Caribbean? As to which you should rename it as, consider that the full name is preferred, and there that will be a sequel out in 2006 named, bearing the name Pirates of the Caribbean. - 22:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMDb says the 2006 film's full title will be Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Of course, that's hardly cast in stone. But then, neither are Wikiquote article titles. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikiquote, anonymous editor, and would you like to have moved your article? ;-) You could, only if registered. Anyway it was moved already. --Aphaia 02:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There was a bit of a mess with the three different titles redirecting around. I've fixed it so #1 and #3 above redirect directly to #2 (the full title). When the new movie comes out, #3 should probably become a dab page, and #1 a redirect to the dab. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff for your editing. --Aphaia 04:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! edit

I accidently deleted your comment in vandalism to add my own. I can't figure out how to fix. --davedorr9

No prob. I'll fix it. Welcome to Wikiquote ;-) --Aphaia 02:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pirates problem edit

In my computer, it shows that Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl did not exist, and Pirates Of The Caribbean reverted to an earlier page. - 02:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice, but I truly recommend you once register yourself and come again. As for your current complaint, it is totally your own problem - you saw your old cache without reloading, that's all. Cheers, --Aphaia 04:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfA Thanks edit

Kalki promoted me to a sysop early this morning and I just did my first speedy delete here so this feels a proper time to say thank you for nominating and supporting my RfA and for the warm welcome and encouragement I received when I joined the Wikiquote community. I very much appreciate your confidence in me and it's an honour to join the sysop team we have here. I'll try not to cause a mess with my new superpowers! Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, jni 06:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congraturations for your promotion and thank you for your industrious works. I am very happy to have you as our team mate. In my humble opinion we succeed to organize one of best sysop team on the whole Wikimedia project; both friendly and efficient. Let's keep it up! And any suggestion for my dealing with both previledges and normal editing are always welcome, too --Aphaia 16:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sysop Invitation edit

Hi, RPickman. Are you interested in joining our sysop team now? I suppose you feel in a bit different way before a month and some days, as an user with five months experience and as the third most active Wikiquoter on this project. --Aphaia 08:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Aphaia. I appreciate your interest and confidence in me. However, I am still not ready for sysop duties at this time. I occasionally look over the things you folks discuss, and on average I understand less than half of it. Case in point: Have no clue how you could know I'm the third most active Wikiquoter here (also, be advised that my "contributions" could be done by anyone with basic typing skill and a bit of patience). I don't mean to seem ungrateful or rude, but I need to learn at my own pace, which unfortunately appears to be pretty slow. --RPickman 13:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reply and consideration. I would like to notice you I too make mostly "minor" edits - interlang, add category (and sometimes list a new deletion candidate), welcome newcomers, etc. And in my opinion patience is one of expectable character for a good editor. I don't try now to persuade you, but only would like you know I think you as a good and respectable editor, really a good part of our community. Cheers, --Aphaia 13:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments. Cheers to you, too. --RPickman 16:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oops edit

Again he came ;-X And thank for your recovering very much! --Aphaia 12:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

You'r welcome! BTW does the quiet rollback work from diffpages also? Also, I tried to use &bot=1 with this vandal today but got "Rollback failed" message about potential session hijacking (probably because I had left my browser open for the night) even after several page reloads. It worked after I removed the bot flag. Have you seen this before? jni 12:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, I haven't, fortunately I made no massive rollbacks in a few days. I don't think we can do botflag rollback from diff pages - and even if possible, it would be not efficient. Better once to invoke contribution page with bot flag (Go to http::// ... &bot=1), and then roll them back. --Aphaia 13:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.. edit

Thank you for your welcome message. Also I saw "Enjoy.再見." Chinese word in this time(Last time was in Meta). Woo..!! :P--Simon Shek 15:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your are welcome, actually. ;-) Hoping your Wikiquote life is prolific. --Aphaia 15:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Message edit

Konnichiwa. Thank you for your message. You, and people like you, put a human face on the encyclopedia and I am grateful. I hope to collaborate with you someday. I say good day to you! ;) --Liberlogos 06:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome and thank you for your visit on my talk. I expect to collaborate with you someday, too ;-) --Aphaia 07:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome message edit

Thanks for the welcome message. Just because you asked, I created an account here. However, I still expect to spend most of my time on the 'pedia. And thank you for your response. Moink 08:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Logo on Hu Wikiq edit

Hungarian Wikiquote just started a few months ago. Startpage and environment is under construction. Thanks for interlinks (Gottlob Frege, e.g.) . More, we are grateful for all of your contributions in Hungarian Wikiquote.


Adminship edit

Aphaia Thank You for your consideration for my status as an Admin. I am a strong supporter of wikimedia's cause and I always try to further wikipedia (and the rest) in all ways I can. However, as you may have noticed, my presence at Wikiquote have been minimal recently. While I am preparing to up my contributions, I must kindly decline the offer. Either way, I still want to say thanks for your many contributions and progress here at wikiquote and beyond -- I'm excited, as well as proud, to see the progress that has been undertaken in the recent months. Thank You, ~ RoboAction 19:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you from my side, I hope you will be active again here on Wikiquote. Your edits are quite nice. And I'm pround of your compliment, but I would like to say, without your contributions and maintenance for a long term what we see today couldn't be possible ;-) --Aphaia 09:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just to say... edit

Thanks for the welcome. I tend to hang out on the English wikipedia most of the time, though I hope to contribute here as well. --The wub 09:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thanks ;-) For linking to Wikipedia, try [[w:blah blah]]. Both your visit and contribution will be surely welcome! --Aphaia 11:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

milton page edit

Hi, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to do. I wasn't making new pages to submit quotes; the Milton quote page looked disorganized, and I thought it would be easier to navigate if it were broken up into different sections. The only new pages I created were the ones for his 3 major works, because I anticipated that there would be a lot of quotes there (Paradise Lost already had a page that duplicated some of the quotes on the Milton page). So I wasn't really submitting anything new (I agree that some of the quotes are too short, but I didn't want to mess with what other people had already written) but just moving quotes from the Milton page to the work-specific pages (in addition to putting them in chronological order, standardizing the way the sources were cited, and adding links to e-texts of the work(s) being cited). I can see the logic of doing away with the separate prose tract pages and just keeping them as a section of the , but I anticipate that people will be adding quotes to the "major works" pages and that it'll be easier to deal with the Milton page if those quotes were separated out. Let me know if any of this is unclear. Psp 02:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello Psp, thank you for your reply. First I would like you to learn I appreciate your organisation, and I noticed Paradise Lost was already there. And perhaps you mistook my words, too. when I said "your submissions", I meant your four newly created page. Except "Aleopagitica", all pages seem to me stubby, so on my preferences currently it seems better to keep those quote in Milton's page, unless you have a plan to add some quotes to those articles in a near future. Specially Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce has just one quote, so I wondered why you would have liked to create it.
Perhaps you have a different impression, but curerntly the main page of Milton seems to me too skelton-like. Would you like to add some quotes? Cheers, --Aphaia 21:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Category Suggestion edit

Hi....Thanks much for your welcome....I firstly was suggesting that there be an "Other Categorization Schemes" which was on the main page or at least the categorization page, so that people could add their own ideas for new ways to categorize quotations (such as Wikipedia offers for alternative categorizations). My specific idea was to allow people have a place to put their own self-made quotations...Just as there is a place at Wiktionary for adding one's own ideas for words-that-should-be-words. Does that make sense? Thanks Brettz9 21:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for youre reply. Currently we recommend the editor to use their user page as "their own compendium of quotations including their own quotes". Perhaps you are pleased to have an easy way to browse those user-custamized compendiums. Or not. --Aphaia 08:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
That is fine, but could there be a centralized place for linking to such new quotations (arranged by topic, if not allowable within the main topical scheme)? It is not as likely that these quotations may be found if they are simply on a user's page. Brettz9 18:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
If I recall correctly, there is no such a category. How about making a proposal like "Category:Favorites" or "Category:User's recommendations". --Aphaia 18:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

AP vandal pretending to be you edit

The ass puss vandal has struck again, this time by imitating Wikipedia's Netoholic and then you (as Aphaïa -- note the umlaut) in rapid succession. I don't have time to elaborate, but I've blocked both user names and am monitoring RC for new outbreaks. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. it is the usual way of WoW ... --Aphaia 02:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ryan North edit

Ryan is the author of the Dinosaurs Comic strip. He writes several other webcomics, and is fairly well known in the niche market of "out there webcomic strips". A google search brings up, an interview and such.

What do you think? Notable enough? MosheZadka 04:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh it's a big deal ... I'll try to consider that problem till the vote closing. Thank you for your information! --Aphaia 18:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. As per User:Jeffq's suggestion, I went to check Wikipedia, which has a larger staff for such matters. I found they had a page about w:Dinosaur Comics and as all my Ryan quotes from that comic, I just created Dinosaur Comics, with a link to wikipedia to make sure people see evidence for notability. :) MosheZadka 06:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice solution. If all his quotes come from his work, it would be better to turn a redirect to the work itself in my opinion. It is redundant to have two pages with totally same content. --Aphaia 10:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WMF Translation and SlawekP edit

Hi Britty! Long time no see. And it is good to be back...

Now, down to buissness. Unfortunatelly I am up to my ears in work right now, trying hard to get all the credits and pass the exams. Probably won't, though, but that's another story. The point is that I will not be able to do any serious work around here at least till May 20. Sorry.

As for User:SlawekP, after taking a look at his user page I can state the following:

  • Most of the text there is made up of quotations form the Bible and some quasi-religious writing of the worst kind
  • The paragraphs seem to be (fragments of) articles from an internet magazine the author distributes on the web
  • The address at the bottom points to some entity the author calls the Truth for the Present Time Publishing House (loose translation)
  • There are a lot of links there – probably to boost their google rank

I strongly suggest deleting the page (under the principle that a Wiki is not a personal website provider).

Hope that helped.

Cheers, TOR 21:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm glad to be working here on this project! It gives me something else to do than worry about the large-work-in-progress-that-needs-more-work-than-it-currently-is-getting Wikisource. Zhaladshar 18:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD archiving thought edit

I was reviewing the VFD and VFDA page histories after my recent archiving when I noticed that you archive by editing the entire VFDA page. I can see why you aren't happy about the page size! Might I suggest editing only the "kept articles" or appropriate "delete" section when archiving? The sections are still too long for comfort, I admit, but they're substantially smaller than the whole page, and there's an added benefit that the page histories show whether the archived entries were kept or deleted. (I do it this way not only because of these benefits, but also because it helps me do things correctly by separately archiving the Deletes and the Keeps. In fact, I caught myself in an error this time because of it. I forgot that Modest Mouse was a "keep" [note the incorrect edit summary in the VFD page history], but when I went to archive the keeps first, I spotted my mistake.) Anyway, it's a way to reduce the edited page size until we move to a subpage or other system for VFD archiving. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I edited the whole page? Hmmm, I believed I edited section(s) but perhaps you are right. I agree with you "editing by section" is helpful for both its editor and readers. By the way perhaps one of first reasonable improvement is a separation of the current archive in one page to several pages (two in kept & pending and deleted or three) before switching subpages. Subpages with normal links to each archives of discussions would be feasible in the first stage, but soon expanding in an annoying huge size, so at last we need to separate pages, I presume. --Aphaia 09:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I inferred your editing of the whole archive page from your edit summaries during your archiving edits (as opposed to minor-tweak edits), which until 8 June did not include the automatic text/links that mark a section edit. (Of course, the same effect can occur if you completely replace the automatic summary text with your own instead of adding to it, so I could easily have been wrong.) I see that you split the horribly long "Deleted articles" section into two pieces; I've just adjusted the section "quick link" bar to conform to your new arrangement. I agree that something will have to be done to improve the situation in the foreseeable future; I just feel that we need to discuss it at some length before making big changes. Based on the concerns that jni brought up on the village pump, it might even be a good idea to test a mockup, like we did with Wikiquote:Proposed Votes for deletion archive. In fact, I see no reason that we can't use that same page title again. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your fixing of quick bar (I forgot it totally). Well mock up will be helpful. Both for discussion and for experiment. --Aphaia 09:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on VfD edit

… My concern is your VFDA comment. You suggested two third as a measurement of consensus making, and it surprised me a bit. I guessed roughly 75% (a bit higher than your criteria). Perhaps if we support "if it doubts worthy to keep, so delete it" policy, 66% would be okay. (And I know even a sysop who deletes articles even 51% support ... so 66% is not too less for me too). But perhaps we are better to make consensus among the team about our judgement criteria? Even though it isn't wise to write down the number itself on our policy page. --Aphaia 08:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't have any policy on consensus here, so I was borrowing what I thought I recalled from Wikipedia:Consensus. I see that it now suggests (as a guideline, not a requirement) 70% rather than 2/3. They're almost the same, but the difference is critical here because Wikiquote VfDs often have only 3 votes, which would then require unanimity for deletion. However, I feel that, young and understaffed as Wikiquote is, we can rely heavily on the "judgment" clause of the deletion policy; i.e., allow and even expect sysops to make judgment calls. That's the main reason I put so much detail into my "vote close" summaries — I want the community to see exactly how I judged the vote.

I agree that we shouldn't have any exact number written in policy. Even Wikipedia doesn't do this, and they can count on much greater participation in votes. However, it's my belief, based on general MediaWiki admin policies, that we must consider sysop judgment to be limited to closing votes. Even though recent Wikiquote policy changes have been largely based on sysop-only discussions, they've always been open to everyone. We sysops must not assume that we make the policy. The entire community must always be given the opportunity to participate on these issues, including defining consensus if they desire. (But I won't bring it up if you don't. ☺) — Jeff Q (talk) 09:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah you are right. Any community member is invited on this issue. I just thought it would be helpful to know what criteria each sysop supports (from his or her experience) to summarize it as a general thought. I apprecite your close comment on vote closing. I think it is a nice habit. From my laziness I moved formerly the whole discussion to the archive first, and then put a closing note, but I found the procedure you proposed or written down on a policy page is much robust and make things easy, though it add some minor histories to the VfD. (A page with many histories can hardly be displayed fastly) But currently it is not our own problems - of our young project. We have not to think rarely how our concensus is made. Most of our votes have no dissent, or one. Some votes are closed only with two votes. And another question happens to me; how long days after we can list an article which didn't gain any sorts of consensus? Or we have to have no rule on this matter? (i.e. if you find a new aspect, you can list it freely to VfD) Sorry for my random thought. I hope later I ask the community opinions on those issues after I can order my own thought. Thank you for your comment. --Aphaia 10:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you brought up several VfD issues on Village Pump. I was thinking that Wikiquote:Deletion policy would be more appropriate, but I have to admit that your approach is more likely to get community participation, which we sorely need. Even if we had a link from VP to WQ:DP, I suspect most people wouldn't bother to follow it. I guess I'm just always concerned that we have very little community interest in policies, so these things are often decided by the sysops. Sometimes I think I only annoy my fellow sysops by calling attention to the need for community participation, only to discover that my more experienced colleagues are more practical than I because they know nobody else will care. [sigh]Jeff Q (talk) 03:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome edit

Thank you. I do not come here very often, focussing as I do upon English Wikipedia, but it is nice to be welcomed. --Theo (Talk) 12:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks. By the way I was quite surprised viting your user page on EN WP, first I expected w:Athenaeum (magazine) would be a German magazine, Schlegel brothers or Novalis had contributed. It was a nice surprise to know two magazines under the same title were contemporary - by the way it means we need to create an disambiguation or not? ;-) --Aphaia 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poet vs. poetess edit

I've fixed at least two articles that had "Poetss" as a category, the last one being Katherine Mansfield, whose category I see you added. I wasn't sure if you were mispelling "poets" or trying to use the uncommon feminine form "poetess". In case it was the latter, might I suggest avoiding such gender inflections for categories whenever possible? It's a common practice in the U.S. to reduce the use of these needless inflections, especially as the old feminine forms often carry an implicit second-class status. As for the UK, Cambridge Online doesn't even include "poetess" in its dictionary. (Merriam Webster Online does, but it doesn't list "poetess" as an alternate form of "poet" — one example of the subtle disrepect such feminine forms evoke.) Unlike masculine pronouns used for gender-neutral subjects, like "he" or "him", English nouns usually have no implicit gender, so there is no awkwardness in using the general term. (There are a few holdouts still, like "actress", but even these are frequently eliminated from indexing and category systems as being pointlessly complicating.) — Jeff Q (talk) 14:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. It was just misspelling... I think it is not a good idea to introduce feminine words for technical feasibility.
I have been however aware Actor vs. Actress problem. Against my general view, it sounds bizarre to categorize Marilyn Monroe as "Actor". As for miscategorization, we can check it in a way? First create intentionally false categories, and put a note about "the correct category". Aph.
Marilyn Monroe is an actor, according to Merriam-Webster Online, which makes no implication about masculinity, not even suggesting that there is a feminine form (unless you know to look it up separately). That's what I mean about some terms taking longer than others to become obsolete. (In the case of actor vs. actress, I'm certain that Hollywood and its historical obsession with sex and gender roles has a lot to do with that.) I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by creating "false" categories and adding notes to "check" miscategorization. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heading format edit

I reverted your change to the article I started on Richard Eberhart. You changed it away from the format described in Wikiquote:Templates which I had followed. Rmhermen 16:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two format de facto and some editors follow my way (or precisely I have learned it from other editors, like Kalki, if I recall correctly.) In relation to this parallelism, I plan a series of discussions which will involve some policy documents. Already I start another type of format discussion on Wikiquote talk:Guide to layout. Your participation will be appreciated. --Aphaia 17:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using rollback edit

I usually do use rollback for reversion, but I get flustered sometimes during these AP/PS vandalisms, and when I'm flustered, I make mistakes. When I'm trying to untangle mass-vandalism, I usually bring up a separate window for each page that had been vandalized. If it's simple vandalism, I can use rollback without problems. But when it's complicated like this recent one, where there were several stages (User:BeanGlue's direct contributions, uploaded images, and pages linked to those images in a way I couldn't trace through page history), I find it extremely easy to get confused. I've already had one experience where AP started a second wave of vandalism while I was still fixing page-moves from the first one. I'm much less confident that rollback will do the right thing if I'm looking at a page history that may be out-of-date because someone has changed the page while I've been reviewing the damage. But I know if I pick the last good version, then edit & save it, it'll be fine. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah thanks for your clarification. Related to "complixity" of ASV, I have sometimes experienced unavailability of bot flag option - If I added to "&bot=1" to contrib page, I got a contrib page without history. I wonder if you had any similar experience ... --Aphaia 07:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't say — don't know what the "bot flag option" is. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From Wikiquote:Administrators
Revert pages rapidly & quietly. Though every user can revert a Wikiquote page, a quicker way is available for administrators. Once they click [rollback] botton on an user contribution page or diff page, it is reverted with a message automatically generated. For recovering vandalism, administrators can revert pages in quiet, adding a bot flag to their reversions. Adding &bot=1 to the url of an user contribution page, and reversion from this page doesn't appear on Recentchanges. Administrators should never use this quiet mode to hide reversion in their personal purpose.
That is, so not only your reversions but also original editing of the vandal woulnd't appear on Recentchanges. --Aphaia 01:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I can see how extremely useful that is for vandalism reversion. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Previewing Problems edit

Aphaia, thank you for noticing this. I do preview my edits every time I post. But in this particular instance everytime I clicked "save page" it did not show up how it was previewed - it left out one measly line of code that made everything centered. I waited a few hours, but then kept editing it in different browsers to see if the problem was on my end. Eventually it just worked. I knew I was doing something very superfluous, but I hoped you would let it slide if I explained myself. --Slac 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation, I see. --Aphaia 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you please change the content of this template into

'''Wikiquote''' is run by the non-profit '''[[w:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]''', which operates several other [[Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination|multilingual]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|free-content]] projects: {| align="center" cellpadding="2" width="100%" | <nowiki>[[Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[wikt:en:Main Page|'''Wiktionary''']]<br />Dictionary and thesaurus | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikibooks-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[b:en:Main Page|'''Wikibooks''']]<br />Free textbooks and manuals | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[w:Main Page|'''Wikipedia''']]<br />The free encyclopedia | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikisource-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[wikisource:Main Page:English|'''Wikisource''']]<br />Free source documents |- | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikispecies-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[Wikispecies:|'''Wikispecies''']]<br />Directory of species | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikinews-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[n:Main Page|'''Wikinews''']]<br />Free content news source | <nowiki>[[Image:Wikimedia-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[m:Main Page|'''Meta-Wiki''']]<br />Wikimedia project coordination | <nowiki>[[Image:Commons-logo.png|35px|<nowiki>]] | [[commons:Main Page|'''Commons''']]<br />Shared media repository |}

see here for the explanation User:Schaengel89 08:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It won't work with somuch "nowiki" (see Template talk:Otherwiki) and I don't want to break our current table. Honestly I don't figure what you want. Would you please give the version which I can really replace with? Thanks. --Aphaia 12:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an attempt to standardize Template:Otherwiki across projects. I think it's actually identical to the current one, except it uses large (Commons?) images with size specifications in the table entries. The mess of the above text comes from Schaengel89 merely pasting nowiki'd table text, the result of which utterly fails to convince anyone that it's worth doing. It should be shown in its proper table form to be taken seriously. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

E.g. this picture has a lower quality than this. thei're are all from the commons. It's much more easier to find those images. actually, on the commons there are more than two/three files of each logo, some are smaller, some bigger, but most of them have a total complicate name.

old filename new filename
Image:Wiktionary-logo-en-35px.png [[Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png|35px]]
Wikibooks without text-35px.png [[Image:Wikibooks-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Wikipedia without text-35px.png [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Wikisource-logo-35px.jpg [[Image:Wikisource-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Wikispecies without text-35px.png [[Image:Wikispecies-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Wikinews-logo2-35px.png [[Image:Wikinews-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Wikimedia without text-35px.png [[Image:Wikimedia-logo.png|35px]]
Image:Commons without text-35px.png [[Image:Commons-logo.png|35px]]

excuse me, that I answer so late... 07:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you prepare the complete version, please? You thought I would be happy to paste those items into the message edited? Sorry I'm not. So I won't engage such works. It is very annoying and we are happy with the current version. I have other things I want to care for. --Aphaia 27 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Plato edit

By the way, you are working on Plato, and I appreciate you on it, too. If you could add also some quotes from Symposion or Phaedros, or Apology, you will make at least me very happy (I regretfully have no good English translation like Loeb for now). --Aphaia 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll definitely add from Symposium, and I've been looking to read Paedros anyways. --Slac 17:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I misspelled ;-X One of favorite quotes is found at Symposium, "then you find yourself at the ocean of beauty" somewhat (sorry, rough translation). --Aphaia 17:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikiquote. I enjoyed wikipedia, and I have just finished exams so I have been registering on all the other wikimedia sites today. That way I can have the same user name on all of them.

(I have corrected my user page.)

John Cross 20:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Book cover conventions edit

Hi, Aphaia. I left this comment with User:Dbenbenn[1], who helped set me straight on licensing of the book cover. He's new here and didn't know the convention (if any), so I figured I'd ask you, since you're the only other user I've interacted with here. Feel free to respond here or on my talk. Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer! —HorsePunchKid 04:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board election edit

Aphaia, I was just reviewing the information and links you've provided on the upcoming Wikimedia Board of Trustees election, but I had one important question that didn't appear to be addressed — how does one vote? I assume that when the voting officially starts, there will be some link to take one to an appropriate place to vote, but if so, shouldn't there be a statement to that effect in the announcement (like "when the voting period begins, a link will appear in this section to go to the polling page")? I'm sure that people who have already participated know the answer to this question, but this doesn't exactly encourage first-timers to pay attention or put a reminder in their DayTimers. ☺ Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I would be happy you didn't revert it. It is not my personal decision, but based on consensus of the Election Officials and added on their (or our) behalf.
I appreciate however you for your interest! Well, I confess I don't know exactly either ;-) Well, but we know Tim Starling, our collegue and developer is preparing the vote interface and it will appear in a proper time. Chers, --Aphaia 07:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, Aphaia! I think you misread my "reviewing" as "reverting". Be assured that I have no desire to edit anything in an article about Wikimedia Board election issues, about which I know very little. All I want is to know where to go when the vote starts. Sorry about any confusion. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, that is (and I wondered what you had reverted, because there was no change), sorry for my hasteness and misaccusation. I have no firm idea on "how" but it will be similar in the last year. A special page will be created and we can link from RC to it. It will be also possible to reach from "Special pages" link in the toolbox, but for now only Tim knows it. --Aphaia 10:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since the election was announced to the entire community on the village pump, I would hope we wouldn't have to monitor RC or hunt through Special pages to figure out how to vote. (In U.S. history, when state and local governments didn't want certain people to participate in elections, they created obstacles to keep out "undesirables". This is beginning to feel a little too similar, even though I'm sure it's unintentional.) Shouldn't there just be a link at Wikiquote:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005 and/or Wikiquote:Village pump#Election?
Thahk you for your suggestion, it is a nice idea. But for visiblity is it not wrong also (and not only) RC has a link? How do you think we Election officials to send a note (it is a sort of postscript of the Election notice) "Hello all, now the vote opens. You are invited to vote at [[Special:somehwere]]. Thank you for your attention." --Aphaia 12:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When the election begins there should probably be notices on the main page, as well as "recent changes" and perhaps Tim or another developer might post some notice that automatically appears on most pages, as occasionally has been done in the past. ~ Kalki 12:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aphaia, my thinking was this:
  • A link should be provided at Wikiquote:Elections... because that is Wikiquote's official page that announces the election.
  • A link should be provided at Wikiquote:Village pump#Election, too (or at least an announcement like "voting has commenced; see WQ:Elections... for details"), because this was how we informed the general community about the upcoming election.
We established these two venues to tell the community about the election; we should use them to tell them where to vote. Simple logic. Besides, I strongly suspect that very few people monitor "Special:Recent changes" besides sysops and a few active non-sysops. Or do you mean some other "RC"? — Jeff Q (talk) 20:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Aphaia: I have a relevent quote for a locked page; please consider it. Thank you. GW edit

Dear Admins: please add this quote -if you see fit - to the wiki quotes on abortion:

The Lord calls the prophet to service

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations'." (Holy Bible, Jeremiah 1:4-5; New King James Version Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

Thank you. PS: Please email me at to let me know your decision. I don't have a page in wiki quote, but I do have one in en.wikipedia ... Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is ok. edit

The deleation of Faith is not a major loss. I understand why it was deleated. --Admiral Roo 10:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

local embassy user edit

you created User_talk:Deir_Yassin after someone put that in Wikiquote:Local_embassy via anon ip edit. I don't think it was a hoax because w:User:DeirYassin is real and mentions the same language (though he's not listed on their w:Wikipedia:Local_Embassy). I removed it from the embassy page, because it's a nonexistent user. If you wish, you could ask him about it on wikipedia. But anyway, you should delete that usertalk page that you created, because there's no wikiquote account that it corresponds to...? Sams 10:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice, Sams, I thought he would find his mistake and later create his account. I was aware there is no such user among us ... but now he (or she) isn't back so it is nice of you to ask him if he would like to register himself to this project, and if so, would we keep this page for a while? --Aphaia 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From a technical standpoint, I wonder... Did you claim that if someone now creates a wikiquote account with this name, he will automatically have the usertalk page that you've already created as his userpage (and also, will he see a banner on top that a new message is waiting for him?) I would have liked to try to create it myself, just for the experiment, if there was a way to delete the account after I try, so nothing permanent would remain after the experiment. But who (if anyone?) has the ability to delete user accounts? Sams 19:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure but your worrying sounds reasonable. So I prefer to keep it, but I don't mind you to speedy it. --Aphaia 21:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks edit

Thank you very much for helping me.


Could you please... edit

Look over the kath and kim page on wikiquote i just created? I'm not sure if it quite meets what is required and i'd appreciate some help from a more experienced person around here. I tried to sorta immitate the blackadder page, but im not sure it quite worked. Also with the welsh proverbs page i added heavily to i just copied the english proverbs set out, does it matter if it looks a whole lot different to some of the other proverbs pages? is there a set way of doing things?

Thanks for your time and also for your welcome :-) --Paddy whack 10:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Paddy whack, thank you for your message and excellent works! Your formatting is almost perfect. I am not sure on TV shows article, so I would like to ask others' opinions, but I guess they will also be amazed. As for Welsh proverbs, your formatting is quite nice, too. However I would like to make it clear if you added legitimate (not merely translated ones from English) --- if those proverbs are used in Wales really, it is okay in my opinion. Sorry for my silly question, but your wording is a bit unclear for me because of language barrier (Engish is not my mother tongue, so sometimes I need to ask such a silly question). Cheers, --Aphaia 27 June 2005 02:32 (UTC)

I didn't copy engish quotes, they are all legimate welsh, i only copied the format on the english proverbs page. Is this okay? I was a little confused because the prverbs pages all seem to look different... i was wondering if there was a "set" way of doing things? if so, could you show me where it is?

Thanks for all your help, and your kind comments :-), --Paddy whack 27 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thanks for your clarification. I am happy to work with you really. You pointed out a crucial one - yes I think we don't have any general formatting policy on preverbs for now. Perhaps it is better for us to develop it. If you have any idea how to format those articles, please put your idea on WQ:VP, our general discussion page. --Aphaia 27 June 2005 05:16 (UTC)

User:Hitlershithole edit

The user account should be blocked under offensive user name, and I think the edit is questionable at best? (Added by Amgine)

Hitlershithole (talk · contributions)
I agree. I reverted the edit. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 06:59 (UTC)
I too agree. On WP he would almost certainly be blocked because of his user name, I see no reason why we should be different. jni June 27, 2005 08:15 (UTC)
Agreed to three. Jni did you block this user? --Aphaia 27 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)
To be continued to Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy
Is the name really offensive? I mean, no one likes Hitler, anyway. Jeremy Hanson 28 June 2005 01:49 (UTC)
I replied on the page the above (Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy). --Aphaia 28 June 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Thank you! edit

Thanks a lot for the welcome—very much appreciated. :)

Doshea3 June 28, 2005 00:01 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you again for your excellent work on Ulysses. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Why, thank you! I shall try my best. :) — Doshea3 June 28, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Abortion note edit

Aphaia, I think you mean something other than what you're saying at Talk:Abortion#Proposal: unprotect. You appear to be talking about how to refer to the anti-abortion (A-A) side, which is better known as pro-life (P-L), but you wrote your text using my shorthand for the two sides of anti-abortion/pro-choice (A-A/P-C). The result makes no sense. I was going to fix it myself, but the use of the two abbreviations "A-A" and "P-L", to render your point accurately, will only confuse readers who have only seen the abbreviations as I've used them, "A-A/P-C", and they will probably have the same problem you did in mixing them up. This is my fault for using the easily-confused abbreviations in the first place. I am going to clarify my text retroactively, so I recommend you update yours after I do so, so that both our points are clear. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Aphaia, did you unlock the page and block me? What is going on with this page being lcoked for so long? Why did you not respond to my request that you take back the false allegation or demonstrate that it's true (you accused me of breaknig the non-existent 3rv rule, which I did not)? You are not playing fair. I understand you do not like my contributions. But you have an obligation to follow your own rules. At present your attempts to silence me are baffling, as they are so un-wiki as to make a mockery of what wikimedia claims to be. 2 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

QuotationsBook on Leonardo Da Vinci edit


Why remove the external link to Leonardo Quotations on the lower part of the Leonardo da Vinci page? I submitted it, and don't see how it is not useful, since I have spent 8 months painstakingly creating the most comprehensive quotations database available (

This collection will continue to grow, with more cross-references to Leonardo content, at that same external link.

Let me know AmitKoth

Sorry but Wikiquote is not a web directory, and it is good for us to have a link to sources but I don't find any benefits to have a link to other quotation sites, specially less developped than ours.

Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 1 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Aphaia/Archive01".