Jc-S0CO~enwikiquote

NOTICE: If you leave a message on this page, I will reply on this page. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there and I will get back to you whenever I can.

Votes for deletion

Remember to add your own vote after you have made a nomination. - InvisibleSun 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the first time I've done this. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Boilerplates

Seeing that the standard Wikipedia templates do not exist on Wikiquote, I have created a new template for labeling articles in general need of additional citations. I have noticed that not only are the Ambox templates missing here, but a previous attempt by another user to create one was deleted. Would you like me to make more such templates in this style, or is a more "standardized" format needed? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

S0CO, UDScott asked me to comment on your question because of my perspective after working on some template and template-porting issues.

First, I'd say that providing Wikiquote a WQ-specific template for requesting better sourcing is an excellent idea. I'm not really current on the state of such an effort, but several attempts have been made. Wikipedia's {{unreferenced}} template has been ported, but without any of its useful formatting, and so doesn't current stand out the way it needs to. (I would also suggest that it doesn't obviously convey the distinction of a quote source, as opposed to a fact source, which we occasionally need for introductory paragraphs. Mea culpa — I imported it years ago.) {{fact}} (much like WP's same template) and {{source}} are slightly different attempts to tag individual quotes and/or their sources, but both suffer from an easily correctable emphasis on unsourced statements rather than absent or inadequate quote sources.

Most templates ported from WP have these kinds of problems. It's generally not enough just to change WP links to equivalent WQ links. For one thing, we try to say that we need "specific quote sources" instead of "references", because we're not looking for base material for prose, but rather a publication that shows a quote exactly as we're displaying. That's not hard to fix. Harder is the issue of WP templates that, over the years, have acquired substantial complexity out of a desire to standardize their structure, transclude common features (like help pages and other helper sub-templates), and incorporate a huge amount of special CSS features that very few Wikiquotians know how to add (and have permission to do so). I've done a few, but I have to admit that I haven't tried to keep track of what we have, or to systematize these WP-imported features. As a result of this casual accretion by perhaps only 3 or 4 editors, WQ currently has only a few of WP's vast formatting features.

I see that you've already done some partial inclusion of material from w:Template:Ambox in an attempt to simplify your Template:Refimprove. That's exactly how most successful WP template-importers do things. I would advise against trying to import the general templates and structure of WP's message box system, not only because it creates a large number of templates to maintain, but also because it would probably require an even larger amount of changes to WQ's CSS files. (As you observed, Jusjih tried something like this a year ago and found he'd bit off more than he was willing to chew.) Even if you believe you will have the time and energy to maintain everything, I would advise caution, because one never knows when things may change dramatically. (I used to have the largest edit count — by about 20% — on Wikiquote, and often made 1500-2000 edits/month; now I'm lucky if I do 10 edits a month.) Template maintenance is either too challenging or not sufficiently interesting for most of the frequent contributors, so saddling WQ with a complex template/CSS structure would probably cause concern. In fact, we've had a few Wikipedians come here try to "standardize" templates across all Wikimedia projects, and the resulting poorly tested, largely broken, and often irrelevant files they generated were rapidly deleted by the community. It's always possible that we'll find ourselves with enough energetic, WikiMedia-savvy editors like yourself to take up this task more conscientiously than our community has done to date, but it's best to get to know the current community before testing that premise. ☺

That said, I think you're off to a good start. Make sure any individual or article/section templates ask for specific quote sources, directly incorporate some box formatting and background color data (where appropriate) that can be found in WP's CSS files (as you've done), and I'm sure the community will benefit greatly from your templates. If you want to add some CSS features to Wikiquote, let me know, or ask at WQ:AN for assistance, since CSS changes must be done by an admin. Once you're happy with the result, you can announce it at WQ:VP so others can see, edit, and use your work.

One more important point: make sure you include credit to any Wikipedia material that you're adapting for Wikiquote use. Formally, we're expected to copy the edit history of any pages (including templates!) onto the incorporating WQ page's talk page. Informally, we've been "getting by" by including in the edit summary a full link (no link label) to the source WP page, something like this: "Copied and adapted material from w:Template:Refimprove and w:Template:Ambox". If it's too late to put in the edit summary, put it on the talk page.

Sorry for the long-winded "perspective", but I hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Although I don't plan to replicate the complexity which is seen in Wikipedia's template structure for several reasons (not the least of which being that WQ has far fewer contributors), I can definitely see where the distinction would need to be made between citations for article summaries and providing citations for direct quotes. Perhaps ^{[citation needed]} versus ^{[unsourced quote]}? In any case, I hope to make a number of templates in the vein of the one which exists now, and perhaps work out a system for tagging with dates or consolidating multiple issues into a single box, but for now I'll be working this out one step at a time. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also interested in contributing to this area, and I suspect several people would have valuable input whether or not they choose to invest much time on it. It might be a good idea to set up a project page for coordinating efforts and sharing ideas on the many issues involved, such as alignment with policy, prose tone, visual style, technical implementation, & etc. What do you think? ~ Ningauble 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have introduced a tag for marking dead links. It is different from its Wikipedian counterpart in that the brackets are red to draw additional attention to it in the flow of text.^{[dead link]} ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama and noteworthy quotes

I have sparingly quoted from both Obama's books. I have only chosen the most notable excerpts (memorable, meaningful, moral and noteworthy) and added them myself. After examining much of the rest of the material on the Obama page which I have heavily contributed, I find that it is cluttered with non-notable quips and isn't worthy to remain on the page...things like "I'm not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me." serve absolutely no memorable purpose, have close to no meaning, and they are quips that are said at any random moment by absolutely anyone and are more attributions than quotations. People are adding ANYTHING just because Obama said them. Just because he said it doesn't mean they should be added here. I noticed you also agree with this notion because you reverted an idiotic quip added by someone. On this note, tomorrow Obama can come out and say his dinner tasted good and that he likes a certain food...and I believe that DOES NOT NEED TO BE HERE. Much of the material on the page needs to be heavily reduced, but the section from the books isn't among that. The rest of the page is so cluttered with such gibberish, it's not even funny. I don't want to remove anything from the date-modified order...but I want to point out that there's way too much unimportant quips here and there that need to be removed. I won't take any action on my own, but I will point this out as a major issue of clutter. I posted a very similar message on the talk page. I'd very much like you to speak out about it. I want to work to make this page well-formatted and accessible, much like most of the other pages I have worked on. I see that you are also concerned with formatting and maintaining order, so I thought it would be nice to hear from you about this page maintenance issue. Zarbon 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk Down

thanks for helping out on the article. That anon with an IP range of 71.1XX.XX.XX just doesn't give up. Providing insight into the film, as a previous edit summary of his said. Insight, my ass! Like, can you STOP already (and by you, I mean him)? --Eaglestorm 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin notice

As you have just edited here, I hope that you will be attentive to another occurrence of a known vandal using a name related to past vandal accounts: Peepsheem (talk · contributions). A permanent block related to the Meepsheep (talk · contributions) account would be appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have admin permissions. I'll keep an eye out for vandalism by this account, but you'll have to contact someone else to get a block in place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How are you sure that this account is related to the original? --Step0 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be something to ask Ningauble, who set up the block. The only similarity would seem to be the name, but even that isn't all that similar. I didn't see any vandalism committed by this account - the block may have been premature. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jc-S0CO. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jc-S0CO~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

05:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)