- For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
- Also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
- To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
- To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
- Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
- Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
- When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
- Be bold.
Not that it will help that much! As a wiki wanderer I arrived here and dealt with some vandals and accidentally became an admin with much to learn - it's only recently I managed a deletion request without errors! I can tell you there are some great people here, that it is not like en wp (great) or en books (for me confusing, I nearly know what I'm doing there).
All the admins here really are very experienced and by and large very helpful indeed. They do have their own way of doing things but I find that on all wikis - if I could spell chameleon I'd say I'd try to be like one and fit in (firefox is so good at correcting me?). All that said if I can help here (or elsewhere) I always will, in part that is what admins are for in my mind </ramble>. Let me know if there is anything particular - cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Likely that you are being modest about your knowledge and talents :-) Good to know that there are many helpful folks around here as I'm sure I'll need much assistance as I learn the ways of this wiki. FloNight 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! :)Edit
Welcome aboard, dear Flo!! :) Love you, Phaedriel - 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. :-) FloNight 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, Flo. I knew that if I didn't do it, someone else would. ;-) --Ubiquity 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the warm welcome. Applew 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
New Year's resolutionEdit
Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It would have been really nice of you to drop a line telling you've nominated an article I've created for deletion. I discovered this by pure chance—and without notifying anybody who can fix an article with some issues, you're certainly making Wikiquote so much better. I have added two inspiring, and sourced quotes. I hope that will keep the article from being deleted. Maxim(talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words supporting my nomination for adminship. I will try not to make a mess as I learn to use the tools. ~ Ningauble 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Jim CarreyEdit
Thanks so much for the kind words. I actually agreed wholeheartedly with the points you made at the previous deletion discussion for the page - but then as part of my work on Comedy I wanted to turn redlinks blue and did some research to find some poignant sourced quotes by Carrey from interviews and such. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So, after voting in your Wikisource confirmation, I just happened to look at your userpage (and only realized then that you were female, heh; I honestly hadn't given it much thought) and then, on a lark, looked at sulutil:FloNight. It was then, and only then, that I realized that you weren't a sysop here.
"Guh?" was my response, hence the subject line. :)
- Do you think WQ needs more admins now? If so, then I will be happy to help. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm of the opinion that we can [almost] never have too many sysops, especially ones that obviously know what they're doing. Besides, I'd rather you get the sysop bit and never need it than you needing to run to some sysop to just to take care of something. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now and administrator here. ~ Kalki 09:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations, FloNight. :-) You'll do just fine as an administrator for our project now also. – RyanCross (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch. Prod is fine. I'd forgotten completely about it and don't have a strong interest in researching him. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I fully support your recent nominations, but wondered if some of them (the ones that lack sources for the quotes) wouldn't be better as PRODs. I have been doing this for many pages with unsourced quotes - it is quicker and easier and we have established that if pages do not have sources, it is a no-brainer delete. Just some friendly advice. ~ UDScott 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! I was unclear if no sources had become an uncontroversial reason to delete since some of these entries have clean up tags added by established users. Late last year/early this year, most of these were still going to Vfd, I think. This will be much simpler. Thanks :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you deleted this (against my opinion but of course I accept the cosensus). However, there are still 17 pages with that category in, now showing a redlink. Shouldn't there be some automated way to fix that?--Ole.Holm 18:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
re Derek AbbottEdit
- Hi FloNight. I rather agree with you about practically everything, and greatly respect your work at WP:Arbcom and Strategy:Task force/Community Health, but I was a little taken aback by your closing statement at Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott. It is quite unusual in a closing statement here to introduce opinions and findings that go beyond reflecting the consensus of the discussion or clarifying procedural matters. My feeling is that this should only be done in extraordinary situations.
- I do agree with the keep outcome, which is supported by the weight of the arguments and is the clear consensus of participant opinions (discounting StarWarsFanBoy's gratuitous boilerplate).
- "Clearly within the mission of the project" strikes me as a matter of opinion, and this may be more a borderline case than a clear one. WQ:WQ (which passes for a mission statement, such as it is) and WQ:Q (which offers factors to weigh in subjective determinations) often do not lend themselves to clear distinctions.
- "Discussion shows that the quotes are republished" is an incorrect finding. Two discussants note that the quotes are from an interview (the e-zine is clear that "Abbott told PhysOrg.com," indicating original material from an interview or correspondence for their article) and two others note that the article refers to an unpublished paper (as clearly stated in the e-zine). Even if some of the remarks were excerpted from a draft or review copy of the upcoming IEEE paper (the e-zine does not cite any as such) it would be a prepublication and not, as one of the discussants seems to have thought, a republication.
- Would you consider amending your closing statement? I would also be interested if you want to share any thoughts on closing statements in general, because I am open to dissuasion from my opinion about limiting their scope. ~ Ningauble 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I felt that the mixed comments of the discussion needed a detailed explanation to make it clearer. I'll be happy to explain my reasoning.
- "Within in the mission of the project" means that it falls broadly into the category as something that would not be eligible for speedy deletion as something clearly outside of the scope of the project. Sometimes a Vfd entry would be eligible for speedy deletion, either from the start or after it is reworked. That is clearly not the case in this instance, so the weight of the comments is needed to determine the outcome.
- The word "re-published" is meant in a less technical meaning that you are giving it. I was evaluating comments in the discussion about whether the web site was a vanity press type outfit. These ideas from Abbott on Psych.Org are not completely unique, but as you note they are rehashed from his work in other venues. This was not original research that was being published in a light weight medium that we are repeating as a tool to get his message out like a purely self-promotional site would be. IMO, most people in the discussion view PhysOrg.com as a reliable source, instead of a vanity press.
- Before I close a borderline discussion, I do a sanity check to see if I can accept the conclusion, because I would not close sometime that I think is absolutely incorrect in the conclusion being reached in the discussion. Instead, I would have left a comment, or edited the article. In this instance, I can accept the conclusion and decided to close it although I would not have voted to keep. For a variety of reason, personally, I do not think it is the type of entry that we should encourage on site. I hope that helps. Feel free to ask for an explanation any time. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I too do not like to encourage this type of entry, which is why I was struck by reference to the mission of the project. Now I understand that you did not mean the project's "mission" per se, but rather its norms and policies; and that you did not really mean "republished" at all. (The latter called to mind some recent discussions about using repetition in secondary sources as a way to indicate the notability of a quote, but in this case we have only a primary source interview.) I get your point now, I just read it as overstated. Thanks for explaining. ~ Ningauble 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I see this has just been deleted for having no sources. I'm doing an article from scratch - 100% sourced!--Ole.Holm 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! I put it on my user page to rewrite when I found links with quotes on other pages after I deleted it. I ran out of time to do it today, so I'm glad that you can do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikiquote interlanguage communicationEdit
Hi, I'm Nemo from the Italian language Wikiquote and I'm writing you (via a bot) because you're an administrator of Wikiquote in this language; please excuse me if you've received this message more than once.
The simple thing that I want you to know is that Wikiquote has an official mailing list, Wikiquote-l, which can be used to communicate and discuss matters which interest all Wikiquotes. This mailing list was last "advertised" about three or four years ago, before many of us joined Wikiquote, and is currently almost not participated at all by Wikiquote users and very low-traffic. I ask you to subscribe, to participate in discussions and to write about your Wikiquote.
I love Wikiquote, as you probably do, and I think that we should be proud of what we do here, share our experiences and good practices to make Wikiquote better and raise awareness of it.
I remind you that Meta-Wiki is the best place for Wikimedia projects coordination, and it contains several pages about Wikiquote, and specifically this talk page which can be used to discuss about Wikiquote if you don't like mailing lists.
I hope that this message has been useful for you. Cheers, Nemo (write me) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, FloNight, I hope you are doing well. ;) I have preserved an easy-to-access subpage, as a record of the standing restrictions against Kalki (talk · contributions), which came out of your initial investigation. See User:Kalki/Restrictions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Has Kalki apologized?Edit
- I don't think so. It is possible that I missed it if it was included in one of his lengthy comments. In general Kalki's comment's left me with the impression that Kalki thought I've done something wrong by examining the editing history of the accounts. --FloNight♥♥♥ 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I HONESTLY do wish you well and I DO apologize and seek to apologize in many ways for many things that have been burdensome to you and others — I repeat I have no wish to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of anyone, and hope that others will eventually see that it is not conducive to anyone's welfare to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of others. May the fates bless you and lead you to bless others well. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, mentioned your commentEdit
FYI, I've mentioned your comment, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment on User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussionEdit
I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The user User:Jedi3 keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that wasn't about the topic.
Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.
He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.
Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional. and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.
Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.
I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Being harassed by Admin GreenMeansGoEdit
I just joined wikiquote yesterday and I am still trying to figure it out.
There were two pages I saw "Hinduism and Sikhism" and "Islam and Sikhism" which had absolutely incorrect and misleading information. So I thought I would edit those based on the correct information I have. I made the changes but they were reverted back by GreenMeansGo, which is absolutely fine and I understood that since I didn't originally write the article, I have no right.
So I created a new page "Hinduism Vs Sikhism" with all information what is true to the core. But this morning, I see that all the content of my page was removed and it was redirected to "Hinduism and Sikhism" page. My instant reaction was, Why? Seems like GreenMeansGo is the original author of pages like "HInduism and Sikhism" and "Islam and Sikhism" and doesn't want my page to be promoted on wikiquote and that is why he is playing bully with me.
So once I reverted back the changes, the page had prompt by GreenMeansGo that the page is been voted for deletion.
I am finding this admin, just a bully who is using his admin right power to harass and bully individuals who mean no disrespect but just want to put out information that is valid.
So my request to you is if you can be of any help by having the admin GreenMeansGo, leave the content of my page alone and do not harass me anymore?
Also just few more important notes - The page "Hinduism and Sikhism" that GreenMeansGo is so hellbent over, has quotes by the political writer - Khushwant Singh who has been the most controversial Political writer in India. He was never consistent in his writing. His writing changed on behalf of publishers request for gains. "His weekly columns, interviews and memoirs made him notorious, his publishers wealthy, and his readers divided." "His critics deplored his incorrigibly risqué tone, presumed sexism, and dubious ideological beliefs" "the dirty old man and the scathing columnist—lies Singh the storyteller par excellence, the writer who could capture the profanities and profundities of human nature in a sharp phrase or two and keep his readers hooked with his striking lack of squeamishness."
On the other hand Aurobindo was a Hindu Political nationalist reader who wanted India to be just a Hindu nation. He was against Christianity and Islam and wanted them to get out of the country. He was against the word Hinduism which was invented in 19th century by British Colonists. Hence, he gave it an alternate name Sanatana Dharma and wanted Sikhism to be part of it but Sikhs rejected as Sikhism is a distinct religion.
So my point is that, why is it ok to have quotes from such controversial figures on pages like Hinduism and Sikhism? Atleast I have quotes from the holy book of Sikhs which has more meaning. And for no apparent reason my page has to get VFD tag. Why not to pages like "Hinduism and Sikhism" and "Islam and Sikhism" that just spreads hate and misinformation by adding quotes from controversial figures who have never been consistent in their writing or speech.
That's all I have to say. If you think my page should be deleted, then pages like HInduism and Sikhism and Islam and Sikhism should also be deleted too.