Status: Active. bd2412 T

Request for adminship - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I really hate to be a nudge, but is there any chance you can add to the discussion? I hate asking this, I know no one wants to be told to do something by someone else, but I received opposition, and only mild support, and I would appreciate if a sysop showed support. Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 22:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I thought you were nudging me to be aware of it. I am also a 'crat here, so I will likely be closing the discussion. It would therefore be a conflict if I also proffered a substantive opinion. BD2412 T 22:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
If the discussion ends the way it is now, with one oppose, one support, and one weak support, will that be enough to be promoted? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would not consider that sufficient. Promotion to adminship is a considerably more substantial matter than the typical discussion and vote. BD2412 T 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any suggestions for how I can get people to chime in? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I suppose you could post a notice in the Administrator's Noticeboard. BD2412 T 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I’ll try that. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the vote is over. How does it work. Does it depend on the decision of the first ‘crat that gets to it, or are the votes counted? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The closing 'crat weighs the consensus of the community. I would let this stay open for a few more days to see if there is any further participation, or any further reply to any of your comments. BD2412 T 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Haha, don't thank me, now you have more work to do! BD2412 T 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Raymond Chandler

Hello BD2412, I'll like to solicit your help for a task. I think it would be beneficial if a photo of Raymond Chandler was there on his article. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make his photo appear there, not with the usual methods as it is on Wikipedia and not Commons, see w:File:RaymondChandlerPromoPhoto.jpg. Is there any way for it to be shown on the article without copying it to Commons? If not, can you see if it can be copied to Commons because I'm not too sure about the copyright laws. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason that the Raymond Chandler photograph can be shown on Wikipedia, and can not be moved to Commons or used on Wikiquote, is that the copyright law restricts the fair use of images covered by copyright to circumstances where they are required to illustrate the description of the subject for educational value. An encyclopedia article on the subject is considered to be of such value, but a collection of quotes from the subject is considered to be merely entertainment, and not susceptible to fair use. Therefore, we can not use copyright-protected images anywhere on Wikiquote. BD2412 T 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh too bad I didn't know it couldn't be used in another wiki. Thanks for making me aware about it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Doug McIlroy

I believe you are the only WQ admin I know of. Mind taking a look at this? GMGtalk 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Time to undo edit protection?

I refer to this: Changed protection level for "Wikiquote:Wikiquote": Edit warring / Content dispute Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

No edits should be made to this page without discussion, so I see no reason why it should ever be unprotected. BD2412 T 22:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick reply. I inadvertently violated this rule in October and November of last year. I intend to propose we add a note to this page to alert other editors of this restriction and instruct them on how to propose future changes. Where can I find the rule to reference in my proposal? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Generally, proposals to change a policy should be raised on the talk page for that policy. BD2412 T 16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry but I'm still having trouble getting my mind around this. In particular I have three questions:
1. Where can I find the general rule that policy page changes should be raised on the talk page?
2. Is WQ:WQ a policy?
3. Why are none of the pages listed in Wikiquote official policy category edit protected? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
1. The general rule that policy page changes should be raised on talk pages can be found at Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines#How policy has been formulated.
2. WQ:WQ should be considered policy. Although we have never had a formal adoption discussion of the topic, it predates most other policies and has been treated as policy by the community since its adoption.
3. Other pages are likely unprotected because they have not been subject to a pattern of vandalism and/or edit warring. BD2412 T 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Info box text

As indicated above, I have in mind proposing a box at the top of WQ:WQ along the lines of {{Official policy}} Based on what you've told me, I'm thinking the text would be something like this -

 This page has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion.

Does that correctly explain the permanent edit protection? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but note that the edit protection in this case is not merely due to the page being a policy page, but specifically a result of the vandalism or edit warring which has occurred on that page. BD2412 T 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is that something we should say in the box? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would just go with the first box, since page protection due to misuse can occur anywhere. Policy changes should not be changed without discussion, but will not necessarily be locked for editing. BD2412 T 14:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Which is the "first box" - the first box above (the standard policy page box) or the second box above (the first draft of my proposed box for this page)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The standard policy page box. BD2412 T 17:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm seeing two possible problems with this: First, this isn't a policy page. (What is the process for making it a policy page?) Second, the policy box says "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." I'm thinking that doesn't reflect the status of this page, to wit: discussion required for any change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Today's edit to WQ:WQ

I understood you to say (see above) that one of the reasons you left this page permanently edit protected was because it should not be edited without first discussing the change on the talk page. Did I get it all wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That the page should not be edited without discussion includes editing to add Easter egg links to topics unrelated to the page. I see no discussion of whether to add those links to the page in the first place. BD2412 T 02:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
So the rule is "no edits without discussion EXCEPT edits which undo a prior edit made without discussion"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
In this case, it was an administrative action to restore a status quo ante preceding the addition of dubious piping for a policy page. Obviously, it would be absurd if undiscussed changes were made to such a page without discussion, and then could not be reverted by an administrator without discussion (in which case, for example, a vandal could replace the page with a string of obscenities, and the obscenities would then need to remain until a community consensus had been reached for their removal). BD2412 T 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
So the rule is "no edits without discussion EXCEPT edits by an administrator which undo a prior edit made without discussion"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not an exception, it is merely enforcement of the rule. For example, the law doesn't say "you can't take someone's wallet without their permission EXCEPT if you are a police officer taking a wallet back from a pickpocket to return to the person the pickpocket took it from". BD2412 T 18:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
"No edits of this page without prior discussion. To enforce this rule an administrator may make an edit without prior discussion."? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
As a practical matter, that is necessary and correct. BD2412 T 23:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Back to the info box text proposal

I have two concerns about using the standard policy info box for this page:
FIRST, this page is not currently identified as a policy page. (I'm wondering what the procedure is for making it a policy page.)
SECOND, the policy box says "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." Not "You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion (unless you are an administrator enforcing this rule)." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Info boxes like these are directed to provide information to people who might be expected not to know the rules. They do not need to indicate that administrators are permitted to make edits to enforce the rules, just as STOP signs on the street do not need to say "STOP (unless you are an emergency vehicle heading to an emergency)", and "No entry" signs generally do not need to say that authorized people are still allowed to enter. Now that you know the rules, you don't need such an indication either. BD2412 T 04:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding my first concern, I await your response.
Regarding my second concern, taking out the parenthetical still leaves us with a conflict between "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion" (which allows any edit and asks for, but does not require, prior discussion for significant changes) and "You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I addressed the first point previously in this conversation. As for the second, perhaps a better wording would be, "Significant changes should not be made to this page without prior discussion". BD2412 T 17:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
First concern: Are you referring to "WQ:WQ should be considered policy"? If so, do I correctly understand the answer to the question of whether it is a policy to be "no, but it should be"? If so, then that brings me to my second inquiry: You mention "a formal adoption discussion." Where does that take place?
Second concern: How does "Significant changes should not be made to this page without prior discussion" work if the page is permanently edit protected (blocking even insignificant changes)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Some pages in the project space on this site are old enough that they were created to serve as policy pages prior to the adoption of normal practices for establishing policies. I would consider this to be one of them. The place to initiate a formal proposal for a page to be considered a policy page would be Wikiquote:Village Pump, where I have opened such a discussion with respect to WQ:WQ. As to the edit protection, no policy page should be edited without discussion, but where a page is subject to vandalism or edit warring, we have no choice but to protect it. Protection may be indefinite without being considered permanent, as any administrator can unprotect a page if they thing further issues are unlikely to arise. BD2412 T 22:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please review whether the time has come to unprotect this page

Looking at the history of WQ:WQ it appears to me - maybe I'm missing something - that there has been only one incident of disruptive editing in the past 15 years. That disruption was caused by only one editor. Given this history I suggest that "further issues are unlikely to arise" that require the continuation of an edit protection that began 7 months ago. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any administrator can unprotect the page. I would therefore suggest proposing this at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, so that we can get a sense of whether other administrators agree that further issues are unlikely to arise. BD2412 T 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, that was somewhat equivocal. However, I do note that the one admin to chime in seemed to favor unprotection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is another possible way to look at it: We both agree that substantial changes to policy pages "shouldn't" take place without prior discussion (you would go further and say "mustn't"). Converting QT:QT from unprotected to permanently protected is a substantive change. The discussion on the admin noticeboard did not result in consensus support for permanent protection. So, now that the edit war is well in the past, we should revert to the status quo, to wit: unprotection. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since discussion is now underway on the Administrator's noticeboard, the issue should be resolved in that discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll take my thought there. (I posted here because I was thinking the discussion there had petered out. And I wanted you to get first crack at my alternative approach.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Urgent - article protection needed

Please protect Jonathan Mitchell. The IP is removing quotes that have been verified as from the subject, and if they are not notable then neither are the rest of them. I have evidence that the IP is a user socking, the user being the creator of the article who has a history of biased editing on Wikipedia. This is urgent. Thanks. TLPG (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

A favour maybe?

I hope this isn't out of line, particularly on a public platform, but I have seen that you are an admin on Wikipedia as well as here. Could you possibly do a checkuser on the IP editing on the Jonathan Mitchell article against the creator of the article on WP? The IP is totally denying it but I have evidence (that can't be revealed publicly due to privacy rules) that it is him. A CU would confirm it. It would enforce a block on here for the IP range for say three months (a soft block of course to avoid collateral damage), although I would leave it for another 48 hours at the most to allow the IP to go to the talk page as challenged. If the IP doesn't show up it will mean that he has nothing and may well try to revert again once the protection expires in two weeks without talking about the content. A note - the user concerned has had an article he created speedily deleted and out of the very same bias against Autism (hence his editing on the Mitchell article here) he has it in draft mode determined to have this person have an article as part of his efforts to promote Autism in a negative light, rather than in a balanced manner. The draft is for Thomas Clements. TLPG (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • I am not a Checkuser on any project. BD2412 T 21:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah sorry. I foolishly assumed CU was automatically part of your powers. By the way, as an indication of guilt (IMHO), I got an alert when I logged in that the creator of the article mentioned me on Wikipedia. He would only have done that if he knew what was going on here. If there is anything you can do on WP I would appreciate it. I don't edit on WP. TLPG (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thomas & Friends vandals...

...are at it again. Apparently, protecting each article for six months was not going to stop them. I request each article (including The Railway Series, The Adventure Begins, etc.) be protected for no less than a year, and that all these vandals be blocked for no less than that same time period, lest they vandalize other pages. WikiLubber (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

IP vandal User:

It is changing the release years of film articles without explanation. I request all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than six months and the IP be blocked for no less than that same time period. WikiLubber (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another remorseless vandal afoot...

On The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea‎, it constantly removes quotes and replaces Melody with Jasmine, but there is no Jasmine in the Little Mermaid franchise. I request the IP be blocked for no less than three months. WikiLubber (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • I blocked the IP for a week, but since it just started editing, there's no way to know whether this is a dynamic IP which can quickly change to a new address. If vandalism from this IP address resumes, I will impose the lengthier block requested. BD2412 T 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hi BD2412ǃ Have you noticed this? w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

EVula's rights?

What is the go with Evula's ongoing rights? It is 4+ years since they used them, and 2+ years since they have been seen on any wiki. I know that Evula was an early member here and elsewhere, however, in light of recent history, why would we have those rights retained for someone who is fully inactive? sDrewth 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Billinghurst. You can open a discussion a WQ:VP or WQ:AN regarding this, and if three users support a vote of confidence, then one can be opened at WQ:RFA. GMGtalk 22:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
As peripheral to the community, I will leave it to those properly active to look at, I just find it weird. sDrewth 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC) sDrewth 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Note: It has been a while since a vote of confidence has been raised over inactivity, but the last time that happened, there was no consensus for any removal of rights. BD2412 T 12:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

IP vandals...

A bunch of IP addresses constantly bully admins such as Kalki, UDScott, and Tegel, and vandalize the Administrators' noticeboard‎ without explanation or remorse. No matter how many we block, another IP with the same MO continues where it left off. I request permanent protection of all pages they vandalized, including all talk pages (including your own, just in case). But something has to be done to stop that vandal permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Meh. We can't very well protect all admin talk pages and AN, in the case that an IP has some legitimate issue. It's usually taken care of in under five minutes. A minor annoyance. Eventually they'll get a girlfriend or a job or something, get out of their basement and find something else to do with their time. GMGtalk 14:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Most of these edits have come from IP addresses starting in the 86.17-86.18 range. I am thinking that we could rangeblock everything under that for a few days to see if that cools things off. BD2412 T 14:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
To lock out the last five IPs on my talk page, we'd have to range block 4.2 million IPs. Reducing that to the 86.179 through 86.173 range for a partial range block would still block 2 million. GMGtalk 14:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like a lot, but it is a fraction of a percent of all IPs. BD2412 T 15:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
If that plan does work, I recommend those IPs within the range be blocked for no less than six months. WikiLubber (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I have never done a rangeblock before, and I am not sure how to do one. BD2412 T 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I can do it, but I'd prefer to have a consensus at VP or AN before blocking so many IPs. GMGtalk 23:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we can narrow it down to a bit tighter of a range, or a set of smaller ranges. I am not greatly concerned that we will thwart a large number of innocent IP editors from working on Wikiquote. We are not that heavily trafficked. BD2412 T 23:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Koenraad Elst

Hi, dropping you a note because there is a bit of concern about linking to this project from English Wikipedia, specifically in relation to India articles and even more specifically because someone here has been adding swathes of quotes from books written by Koenraad Elst to various articles here. I've tried to work out what the WQ selection criteria may be but I'm not getting it, sorry. What I do know is that sister links from en-WP Indic articles to content here that contains a lot of stuff by Elst may well be rejected. He has his place, sure, just as quotes by Hitler or Lenin etc have their place, but the sheer number of examples I've seen here added by ΞΔΞ in particular seem, wittingly or unwittingly, to be essentially a propaganda exercise. Elst is a Hindu nationalist and occasional outright pseudo-historian, denounced by academics but, like David Frawley, S. R. Goel, Ishwar Sharan etc, admired by the anti-Muslim element among Indian politicians for his borderline fascist opinions.

Wikiquote can do whatever its community wish to do, of course, and Elst is both entitled to his opinions and probably to some record of them here, but driving traffic from en-WP to articles here that seem massively weighted in POV terms is problematic - there's a reason why articles related to India and Pakistan on en-WP are subject to two different sanctions regimes and we don't need to stoke the fires.

Just a heads-up so you are aware if people here should complain about WQ links being removed. There's a brief discussion here and in the last three sections here. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for your concern. Generally, if a subject is notable and has made notable quotes relevant to a particular page, we have no limitation to the number of quotes by that subject that can be included in this compendium. BD2412 T 16:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, I think the issue is what is considered to be a notable quote. Eg: if someone is quoted by someone else then that might meet the criterion but if some random contributor here just sees something they like in a book and posts it then, well, that might say more about the contributor than the quote.
    Anyway, not my problem: we'll just be removing the sister links as and when necessary. Somewhere down the line, I should imagine this is going to be a big issue with Wikidata making the inter-project links, too, and I'd be surprised if the WMF would appreciate the concept of neutrality/not censored being extended to the point of actively promoting an Islamophobic POV or similar, which is what seems to be happening, whether by design or accident. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

one eyeball

... might need to be kept on Atlas Shrugged. Had a little bit of link spam recently. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anthony Fauci

Hi BD2412, how do you do?

Can I ask why you are adding these comments to the Ron Paul quote, but not to Anthony Fauci's own quote that the Coronavirus "is not a major threat for the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about"? This seems to be a double standard.

I am not sure there is anything to "correct" in Ron Paul's quote when he says that this is "A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017." And I am not sure your updates are in line with Wikiquote's purpose. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

We often provide contextual information to clarify the relevance of quotes. In this case, Fauci's earlier quote was a cautiously optimistic statement made in late January, when it was reasonably possible that the outbreak would be contained, while Paul's quote was a fairly outright declaration of a conspiracy theory in mid-March, after a national emergency had already been declared in the United States, and numbers along the lines of what we have seen since had already been projected. BD2412 T 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lint concern...

@BD2412: User:BD2412/Status

Did you mean to have a stray closing SUP tag in this?

I've been making a concerted effort to clear some of the Lint Error backlogs , and the stray SUP tag was identified as part of those efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have removed the stray tag. BD2412 T 14:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hmm , it's now saying there's an unclosed BIG as well. Sorry, I am sounding like the pedantic obsessive that worries when the fries aren't straight in the takeaway :lol: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikiquote Council at en.wp

I am interested but not available to edit there at the moment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Understood, but we still need a certain number of people to sign up to make the project go. BD2412 T 22:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Is there a spot at WQ to sign up? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The sign-up spot is on Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikiquote. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply


I don't know what these two users are up to but it's nothing good. Please consider a block: Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/Manasvip, Special:Contributions/Ashank07. Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would hang on for a bit. Obviously these are the same person, but they may just be trying to get the hang of editing, with an intent to do some good. Have you asked them what they're up to? BD2412 T 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, they previously edited on enwiki under the IP I linked which has been blocked because nothing constructive has ever come from it. I can't imagine anything good will come from their new accounts. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply


I have the memory of a flea: I cannot remember where I saw those images with swasticas. I'll keep looking for them next time I do a run through category: women. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It appears that User:Kalki does not understand how painful the use of the symbol is for some people. I know other users on other projects who may be able to explain it better than me, for example User:DeborahJay whom I met at simple. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

My impression of Kalki over a long term dealing with them is that they consider themself an artist and their work on Wikiquote (which is often quite productive) to be a sort of art project. I think they enjoy the shock value of challenging conformity or some comparable rubric in using swastikas. BD2412 T 21:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

By January 12, 2020, Coronavirus had killed over 1,944,000 people worldwide, and over 380,000 in the United States?

Hi BD2412, I am curious to find out which counter was used to add this info. I think the enwiki COVID-19 pandemic uses the Johns Hopkins counter, but there other reliable sources counters being used, some with fairly large differences. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how interested you are in the number of new covid cases. If you are you may want to check the chart titled

Distribution of COVID-19 cases worldwide, as of week 7 2021

on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control website. It shows the number has started increasing, yet again. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. My intent is to go until the one-year anniversary of the quote (March 16), since it references a one-year period for another disease for comparison. BD2412 T 01:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Copyright question: I have just posted 3 quotes from the same source (Rachel Maddow), each to a different WQ page. I am not sure whether this can be viewed as a copyright infringement. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why this would be a problem. The quotes are quotes. BD2412 T 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

USER:GreenMeansGo breached 3RR

Hi BD2412: Please be informed that USER:GreenMeansGo has breached w:wp:3RR at WQ:AN. I bring this to your attention because I don't think there is an official board to report such infractions on WQ.

I ask that you reflect on this matter since any action on your part has project-wise implications. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

GreenMeansGo was quite clearly carrying out the administrative function of discussion closure, to which 3RR does not apply. BD2412 T 16:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Readers questions?

Hi BD2412,

I need help as a reader of wikipedia, and don't know where else to go. I see that you are a practicing lawyer in the field of Intellectual Property. Can you please help me understand the following wikipedia article:

w:Bell-Northern Research:

This wikipedia article claims that BNR no longer exists, however, a recent news article claims that BNR has recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. How is this possible? Can defunct companies file lawsuits?

Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It appears that BNR was purchased by, and incorporated into, another company. The purchasing company can choose to maintain some form of subsidiary entity by the name of the purchased company, and can exercise rights in intellectual property that came with the purchased company. I would imagine something like that is going on here. BD2412 T 04:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of pages on WQ

Hi BD2412 Despite what you seem to think, I do not create pages here that I know are not suitable for WQ. Deleting the pages I have created without giving me an opportunity to ask questions is counter-productive for the project, IMIO. Repectfully, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ottawahitech: These were not pages, they were redirects, and clearly not the ones you intended. Argentina was redirected to United States, which is nonsense. South America was also redirected to United States, which is no better. Rhode Island was seemingly randomly picked out of the red-linked states to redirect to a category that currently does not include it. The better thing to do would be to create the pages of actual quotes on these places, an endeavor that is not helped by these redirects. BD2412 T 19:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the speedy response. I did not intend to rush you, especially since it is holiday season.
I looked at the log for both Argentina and South America and was surprised to see such a blatant mistake. I usually notice and correct such mistakes. Had those pages been deleted by another admin I would have assumed that the page was erroneously deleted. It has been my experience that some inexperienced patrollers/admins are in a rush and tend to cut corners such as checking subsequent edits, reading comments left on talkpages, etc, before proposing/deleting a page. As far as ar as Rhode Island is concerned, I do not normally add redirects unless I need them to eliminate an existing redlink. Not sure what happened here either.
I asked the above questions on your usertalk page because my previous attempts to address such issues at the various deletion discussion venues have failed to elicit responses, and requests I have posted on pages of some other admins have not been fully addressed (it could be a matter of language in some of the cases I am thinking of). In general I do not find deletions of pages that I started until a much later date. It is a problem for me especially with my flea-size memory. So I therefore prefer the enwiki deletion notification system where users whose pages are proposed for deletion automatically receive a message on their usertalk page. Others at WQ may feel the same way I do.
Note: If this message does not make any sense I blame the new tool] :) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
If your aim is to eliminate a red link, the best way to do this is by finding quotes on the subject of the link and creating a page for them. Red links serve a purpose. They alert editors to the need for a page to be created. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
My aim is not to eliminate one redlink, my aim is to eliminate as many redlinks as possible. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
BTW eliminating one redlink on WQ takes me much longer than doing other useful tasks on WQ.
For example this morning I spent more than an hour, trying to justify keeping Northern Light an article I started after seeing your pervious post above. I find this exhausting and it leaves me little energy for other things I enjoy doing on WQ. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
There should be no incoming links at all for a subject that can not support an article. If I create a redlink for dogs eating bananas, do you feel compelled to "fix" it by finding a place to redirect it, or finding quotes about dogs eating bananas? BD2412 T 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Personally I am not interested in dogs eating bananas, but that does not mean that someone else may, and may be able to explain why it should exist here.
I do feel though, that Northern Light, should have an article here ESPECIALLY since it does not have information available on the main wiki. It is a weekly community paper published in a small county that does not have other public sources of information such as a dedicated TV station. It has survived in Whatcom county for over 150 years, and as such would probably pass the notability requiremnt on Enwiki, or least should, IMIO.
I believe having access to articles about newspapers such as Northern Light, would be beneficial for WQuotians, if no one else. If these type of articles would be permitted to exist on wikis, they would provide a convenient way to locate appropriate sources to include in other articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How we will see unregistered users


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Permission to run formatting regular expressions on all pages (Crosspost from the Village Pump)

I am requesting permission to create a bot that runs formatting regular expressions on all pages. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that you have fewer than a thousand edits across all Wikimedia projects, with virtually all of those coming within the past few months. Also, do you have any experience creating bots? BD2412 T 05:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don’t have any experience creating bots, but I do have some knowledge in programming, and I am already working on the bot. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Abnormally large number of redactions...

This is not a normal editing pattern, and I would strongly urge an administrator intervention. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

ShakespeareFan00, I'm currently having a discussion about this over at User talk:Ferien#Redacting --Ferien (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Funny or serious?

Hi BD2412,

In case you are not aware, An article created here about a Nigerian woman has gone through some unusual handling.

  • Afro Candy was created on 9 December 2022‎.
  • It was prodded by wq-admin-1 later that day, saying that the article had no quotes
  • On 10 December 2022‎ quotes were added to the article by the article creator
  • After the quotes were added, I removed the PROD
  • On 11 December my PROD removal was removed by the article creator
  • On 20 December 2022 wq-admin-2 removed the PROD again, and at the same time changed the intro to point out that the subject is a pornographic actress. The source that was used on enwp to designate this actress as a PA was Vanguard News (I think?)

Since this article is about a living person, I worry that wmf may be sued for slander (or whatever the legal terminology is). I hope this is not too confusing - I will leave this I your capable hands. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Based on what I see here, I am not worried about it. BD2412 T 00:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quote formating question

Hi BD2412,

Sometime ago I saw the way you formatted quotes. It made sense to me and I decided to follow your example. Most quotes I have seen consist of 4 parts:

  • (1) The quote itself (no quotation marks)
    • (2) The name of the person who said it (if they are not the topic of the page), followed by
    • (3) A link (or some other identifying info) to the quote in a primary or secondary source, followed by
    • (4) the date (not clear if it is the date the person who is quoted made it or the date the source was published)

The quote you made had one of those 4 parts in bold, but I cannot remember if it was part 3 or part 4. Am I making sense?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't think I put any of those parts in bold. Maybe the quote itself, if it is one of the most famous quotes by the person or about the subject. BD2412 T 22:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. I don't remember where & exactly when I started bolding #3, but I found some articles where I did this on May 5 of 2022 (Matt Gaetz,Pramila Jayapal, Jen Psaki). I know for sure I did it on more, possibly many more articles. I also vaguely remember bolding a couple of #4’s fairly recently.
    User:GreenMeansGo removed my bolding on Matt Gaetz, but I believe the other two are still bolded to this day. Need I methodically check all articles that I edited or not. What do you think? It is certainly not setting a good example for newer editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
We don't really have an objective standard for bolded quotes. I'm not sure if we could ever actually have one. It's pretty subjective. GMGtalk 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Template:Worldcat subject

A page that you have been involved in editing, Template:Worldcat subject, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Worldcat subject. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. --Lemonaka (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/M. A. Khan

I would like to ask to revisit the case of Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/M. A. Khan and your good faith closure. During the early page of that VfD the specific person was not identified and there was ambiguity with another person. However towards the midway point the creator did manage to identify an individual and was, in my opinion, and to establish a reasonable case for notability on a W:WP:THREE, albeit I felt a little battered by the creator getting them to get to that point and of course I prefer to see a linked English Wikipedia article. A problem arose because in my view the creator became frustrated on failure to close the VFD in reasonable timeframe and essentially as I felt the creator was harassing me I recused from the discussion. However while there may have been an overall consensus for deletion the reasoning of some of the earlier votes were invalidated. I would suggest a cleanstart VfD with the latest information would likely survive the vote. Would you like to consider this? Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 03:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikiquote is not the place to establish notability. Have an article created and survive on Wikipedia first. BD2412 T 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

On WQ in general

Hi BD2412, I thought to pose some three of the most venerable users here an important question I just can't seem to figure out: why do you think, WQ has such an horrendous page rank on most search engines? Why wouldn't e.g. a very expansive WQ article on a relatively niche intellectual always top a short and potentially skewed WP article? Indeed, I think, especially for controversial leaders from historical scientific, religious, and or political movements, having a representative WQ entry is much more insightful than the overly curated alternative. What might be the exact reason for this very noticeable skew? Do you also believe that, maybe, the aforementioned inclusion of certain figures' exact quotes, from politically incorrect up to and including borderline defamatory, has - rightly or not - lead to the actual WMF, well, somehow hardcoding this inferior status into the platform regardless of quality? Any clarification would be extremely helpful! Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I literally never think about Wikiquote search engine ranking, and I doubt anyone else here does, either. Our goal is to assemble a resource, not to appease an inconstant Google algorithm. Our pages are, to a great deal, appendices to existing Wikipedia pages, and our readership will tend to come through Wikipedia readers continuing here from those articles (or people who know about us directly searching for specific quotes). To the extent that we have "competition" it is with other quote aggregation sites, which tend to merely scrape the web and lack our editorial processes. BD2412 T 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see. That wasn't to imply vanity on your part tough, I just think that some pages here would really deserve more than the few dozen daily viewers they seem to be getting. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I agree, @Biohistorian15. I've created some
pages which I wish got more views to be honest. It's nothing greedy or vain or anything like that (well, maybe a little), it just feels kind of pointless to create good articles for so few people to read and I feel like the thoughts and wisdom of people like Victor L Berger and Henry Demarest Lloyd would be quite a good influence for a lot of people.
Also that there is an extreme amount of misattributed quotations online shows the need for a reliable and comprehensive collection of quotations, which of course Wikiquote is. So, yes, I agree with you and I also don't know why it isn't so popular.
Hope you don't mind me butting in on your talk page, @BD2412.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another issue is that links to Wikiquote on Wikipedia are buried at the bottom of the page. Perhaps we could have featured articles (like Wikipedia does), and then these specially approved articles could be given greater prominence on the corresponding Wikipedia page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. And if a single, larger widget closer to the top would seem out of place, one could do the exact same for various other wiki-projects, e.g. "Wikispecies" per zoological articles, "Wikisource" for historical documents (*including as a widget hovering next to sub-entries, e.g.: "read the full document" next to headings discussing some peace treaty resolving a given conflict...) etc. You should propose something like this idea on the village pump! Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am dubious about the prospects of such a proposal, but I do like the idea of having featured pages on this project. BD2412 T 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, apparently there is an ongoing discussion to that effect though lol: Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply