User talk:Jeffq/2006a

Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

from me :)

First of all, hell, at least you have a personality and secondly, I like you shirt! Anyone that will wear a shirt like that has to be kookie in my book, but that's good! 3rdly, I like how you put the quote on my page - that was great! Someone with spirit and creativity is someone I just gotta love! Have a great week, day, year month from waldo. (user 0waldo - 2 lazy to log in tonight...)65.193.87.54 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I hate to tell you this but you are not a good bad cop :) 0waldo 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you are not even going to ban me for an hour? A measley, stinking no good hour? I don't even rate an hour? One hour, that's all I'm asking for, one stinking hour!!! 0waldo 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you are such a bad boy! I admit that I am ashamed of you calling me a 'vandal' ( and the implications thereof ) especially when the reality of the matter is that you know that I was acting out of playful jest! I worked very hard to try not to do anything that could be construed as anything other than that! So, for the record: I want you to know that I am NOT a vandal and I simply do NOT engage in such! I read your personal quotes and like to one about the empty desk/mind because I could relate to that (wink). So, until then.... I’ll be back in a week to check my votes! Touche mon ami!

Jeffer :) Privyet! I added my page back as "walt muncaster" sort of a clean slate if you will ( or won't for that matter ). I was despondent over the deletion of my old page; I even tried to commit Harry Kerri but the rubber commando knife kept bending. Realizing that I could not "take a stab at it" (pardon the despicable pun) I took her to the local magistrate: He promptly gave her a razor, told her to shave and after having her committed, he felt as though he had committed Harry Kerri, or had Kerri then committed her as she shaved and was not Harry henceforth, but Kerri. We all then promptly went out and played a square game of golf with some crooked betters with round balls that knew no better about not being able to bet on round balls at a square game! Anyway!! Hope you like the new page! It is sourced and everything! Clean, procedurally correct, shiny, new and ready to drive :) I remain, for all, the total genius that I am: Munchovie (A.K.A.) Waldo

File:Munchovie.jpg

0waldo :O

0waldo 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC) !Es un día más un día menos! :) sooooooooooooooo.... ¡partido! mi amigo

P.S.^2 ¡despida al Slimfast, le dará una resaca horrible o por lo menos un sistema libre de boletos al cine rocoso del horror!

JEFF :) it's waldo! How have you been my friend? I keep adding my page with the 'walter muncaster' notable quote that is verified and someone keeps deleting it! Since it's notable, verified sourced, etc., why should it be deleted ? Remember now, go by the rules :) HUGZ 0Waldo !

Hi Jeff: Damn! It feels SO good to be unblocked! I feel like a new warf rat or something close :) 0waldo 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I wonder if I can do something to get blocked again?)

Archiving VFDs

Jeff - I was wondering about the archiving of closed votes. Moshe had asked me to handle some of the votes that closed over the last couple of weeks, which I did. But I'm a little unsure of how to do the next step (which you have recently done for some of them), which is to create the archive. I know that there is an input box to create an archive, but I still wasn't quite sure how to do it -- do I remove the information from the VFD page and paste it on the archive page? Sorry for asking what may be a dumb question, but I wasn't really sure how to proceed.

P.S. Loved your exchange with 0waldo. It had me rolling. ~ UDScott 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm glad something positive is coming out of the 0waldo exchange, if only amusement.

Questions about VfD archiving are far from dumb. It's become a rather cumbersome process, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. One of my highest-priority to-dos is to update the documentation in Wikiquote:Deletion policy, but I'm still recovery from my major computer failure problem last month, and I'm severely backlogged in both the real and cyber worlds. (I've mostly limited my wiki work to quick in-and-out edits of late.) It took me a week to muster the strength to clean up the 27 (!) old votes, so I have a fresh perspective of how to close and archive efficiently, but I'm afraid it'll take me at least until next week to tackle this issue. (Documentation is much harder to do properly than the actual work being documented.)

The basic process is this:

1. Copy the entire VFD entry (including the linked heading) into a new VFDA subpage using the inputbox.
2. Add a templated entry in the appropriate place on WQ:VFDA.
3. Remove the VFD entry from WQ:VFD.

   This covers just the archiving of the entry. It's assumed that someone has already closed the vote and deleted the page if appropriate. If the page is kept (or redirected or moved), a fourth step is necessary:

4. Go to the original page's discussion page and add a {{vfd-kept|Title of kept page}} tag to it.

   For moves and redirects, make sure you go back to the original page under review, not the page to which it's redirected or moved. This last step should be done after archiving because it allows you to verify the link shown in the vfd-kept notice.

Here are the details of how to actually execute steps 1-3 above. Feel free to ask questions if anything is unclear or not useful. First, a couple of notes:

• It's best to use a browser that makes it easy to switch between multiple windows. Firefox and Opera provide tabs for a 1-click switch; under Windows, other browsers can usually switch windows by pressing Alt-Tab to cycle through open applications.
• I highly recommend doing one entry at a time when learning the archive process. Once you get the hang of it, it's possible to save time by doing different steps in bulk, but the potential for messing up is considerable, even for old hands (as I found out several times yesterday during the safety checks I mention below).

Okay, now the steps:

1. Copy the entire VFD entry.
   1. Open 2 browser tabs/windows: one with WQ:VFD, and one with the page including the inputbox. (I don't recall where else the inputbox may be, but until there's one in the official policy pages, you're welcome to use mine at User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts. It may require a widescreen display to look right, but you can always add a similar box to your own user pages to suit your needs.)
   2. On WQ:VFD, jump to the entry to archive. Copy the title text, switch to the inputbox window, and paste the title in the box just after "Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/". Clicking on the "Create VFD archive page" button will then create the archive subpage, with a {{vfd-archive}} tag already added to the top.
   3. Switch back to the VFD tab/window. Open a third window to edit the VFD entry section alone. (This can usually be done either with a Shift-Click or Ctl-Click on the VFD entry's "edit" link, or by right-clicking and selecting "open in new tab" or "new window".) Select and copy the entire contents of the edit section (the sequence Ctl-A, Ctl-C will do this in Windows). Switch to the new subpage window and paste this entire entry after the "vfd-archive" tag. Add something like "created VFD archive page" to the edit summary. Preview your edit (to make sure the title matches the entry text, a good safety check) and then save it.
   4. Close the section-edit tab or window.
2. Add the entry to WQ:VFDA.
   1. In the new VFD entry subpage, select and copy the entry title (the part without the "WQ:VFDA/" prefix); you'll need to paste this in a minute. You'll see a link, just under the title, back to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive. Click on this.
   2. After this extraordinarily long page finally completes loading, find the section in which to place this entry. Currently, all Kept (or Moved or Redirected) articles are in a single Kept section, all Deleted pages and images have their own sections, and everything else is broken into alphabetical groupings by the first character in the title. (We treat "A", "An", and "The" as significant for this purpose to make it easier on our beleaguered brains.) Edit the appropriate section and insert the following text between the appropriate VFD entries or templates:

      {{/Title of deleted article}}

   3. Add something like "+Title" or "archived Title" to the edit summary (very important for examining VFDA history!). Preview the edit to make sure the title appears in the table of contents where you expect it to. (This is another safety check: if the subpage didn't save properly, or the title is misspelled, your archived title will not show up in the TOC.) Click on the TOC link to jump to the VFD entry to verify it appears as it should, then save your edit.
3. Remove the VFD entry from WQ:VFD.
   1. After you've completed and verified this archiving, only then should you switch to the VFD page and remove the entry. Again, it's important to add something like "archived Title" to the edit summary before saving.

After all this, you have archived one VFD entry. (Whew!) You should be left with a VFD window and a VFDA window. You will probably find it useful to bookmark the inputbox page, so that you can reuse the VFDA window by clicking on your bookmark, which will leave you exactly where you were at Step 1, ready for the next archive task.

If this hasn't scared you off of archiving VFD entries, nothing will. If you're still in the game, you may find complications, like where to locate odd entries on the VFDA page, what if there's already an article with this title, what if you edit a supposedly new VFDA subpage and it comes up with an existing page, etc. Feel free to punt and ask for help if any problems arise. We can fix anything that goes wrong, short of a catastrophic database failure (which is beyond our control anyway). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Jeff, thanks for the help. After some initial fumbling, I believe I've got it down now. Thanks again. ~ UDScott 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump

Thanks for your response on the Village Pump; I just knew that the users on Wikiquote would be nicer than the cranky old codgers on Wikipedia! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 08:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Being there

Hi, Jeff. Sorry, my life got very busy on the 27th, between a new job and a performance on the 30th. I am slowly but surely catching up on forgotten aspects of my life (such as sleep), and I'll hopefully be more active on WQ soon. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad editer

Jeff the guy that blocked me i need to know are you calling me a bad editer??? -- 169.244.143.115 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

~ signature added by me ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded to this question in some detail at User talk:169.244.143.115#Bad "editer". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Category links

I corrected your WQ:VFD link for Category:Natives of Cornwall. Note the difference:

* wrong: Category:[[Natives of Cornwall]]

* right: [[:Category:Natives of Cornwall]]

I think I can see how you might have misunderstood where to put the prefacing colon and the brackets. Do you recall where you read how to create clickable category links? I suspect the explanation could use some clarification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Jeff, no I don't recall actually. I just took a guess; I wasn't sure how to display that -- in the first pass, I actually managed to add the WQ:VFD to the category. Thanks for the help. By the way, I guess I managed to put myself on the bad side of 0waldo, so you have some company there. :-) ~ UDScott 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for voting, even if it was to oppose; I thought you raised very valid points, and was expecting to have it extended or closed without consensus. I was pleasantly suprised to sign on and find the extra tabs! This makes three projects I'm an admin on; I guess I'll have to go out for Commons admin next or else I'll get all confused over there when I don't have all my shiny buttons! ;-)

Anyhow, if you have suggestions of what I can do, let me know! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon vs. unsigned-in users

I noticed you striking some anonymous votes out on WQ:VFD. I might make a distinction between anonymous votes, which are controversial (and currently under consideration for being dismissed in the draft Wikiquote:Voting policy, I think), and unsigned votes, which the VfD instructions clearly state are not accepted. I think we typically strike votes because they're unsigned, not because they're anonymous. (Aphaia at least may disagree with me on this.) I suggest this as a way to be on absolutely solid ground in striking votes, especially since anons almost never sign votes anyway. Just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I'd be happy to follow whichever convention is appropriate. I was following what I had seen Moshe do actually -- for example for Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Denis Leary. I also admit that I'm losing patience with this user (both when he is signed in or out) and that probaly fueled my actions. I'll follow whatever is the consensus though. Thanks. ~ UDScott 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that striking by Moshe. (That was during my dead-laptop crisis; I missed quite a few VfDs then.) I'll bring that up with him as well. However, I'm not speaking from authority here, as suggested by my conditional words above. Although we must ultimately follow Wikimedia Foundation practices and official policy within our own project, for a project like Wikiquote which is still growing, the reality is that the most active editors often guide the interpretation of policy. Moshe has certainly been our most active editor for a while, and you are rapidly catching up with him. With only a draft WQ voting policy, no formal WQ policy statement on anon voting, and parent Wikipedia's practice (I'm not sure how it's phrased in policy) of treating anon voting as having little or no weight, there seems to me to be room to make this interpretation stick. I don't think I can claim any consensus on the issue, one way or another. So consider this only my opinion. My preference is chiefly to avoid the potential for troublesome editors to take advantage of our informality by calling us on our own policies (or lack thereof). In that regard, striking unsigned votes is not controversial. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Concrete Hippo

Why do you think Concrete Hippo was deleted on Wikipedia? Are you going by the "From Wikipedia" blurb at the top of the article? Are you a sysop there who can see deleted articles? I'd like to know because I'm thinking about nominating the WP article for deletion, which is unnecessary if it's already been done once, and I didn't find a w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concrete Hippo or other expected variations. (I've never bothered to ask for sysop status on WP, so I can't check the direct way.) ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jeff, of course this no longer matters, since I see that you've started an AFD discussion on this topic on WP, but I thought that I had found something when I was searching for it on Google. Of course, I can now no longer retrace my steps. In any case, I think the discussion that has ensued on WP is valid and I still think the page here should be deleted. Especially, since (as I said before), that valid or not as a WP page, how in the world can a statue talk and thus provide quotes? Now, if there were valid quotes about said statue, I might be inclined to let them stand, but I highly doubt that they exist. ~ UDScott 13:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

I invite you to sincerely explain precisely what is wrong with the Abortion page. The fact that some of the quotations made in support of abortion (in an attempt to justify abortion, in order to explain why one supports abortion, or to explain that supporting abortion is crucial despite the disquieting aspects of abortion) are ironic, puzzling or disturbing is not a sign of bias within the page. Rather it is a sign that the page offers a diversity of comment that causes one to think about a controversial issue. I cannot understand your comment that you ae guarding the POV flag. No quotes that support abortion or oppose abortion have been removed or disallowed. Please explain how a diversity of quotes indicates a bias of any sort other than a bias toward diversity? After all is said and done, what grave errors have I committed? - and I trust that while you might prefer I edit other pages, the fact that I only edit one page is NOT an error or against any policy. Mr. Grace

Anyone can edit as many or as few articles as they like. What massive editing of only a single article does is provide ample evidence that the editor has no interest in the project per se, and when done on a controversial subject is almost always a sign of advocacy of a POV. Your use of loaded terms in the comment above adequately demonstrates the problems we've faced attempting to encourage true neutrality in that article. The fact is that many active editors find the killing of unborn humans absolutely wrong, are committed to eradicating it, and use any means available to advocate this opinion. Likewise, other editors find political and religious rules that force women to carry pregancies against their will absolutely immoral, are committed to preventing this, and use any means available to push their views. (Personally, I can symphathize with both views, but not their rabidity, although I understand that as well.) It just happens to be that most of the bias here has in the past been from the former group, but neither is acceptable. Repeating the word "diversity" does not disguise the regular sabotage of quotations supporting either side by both sides. I will not support the removal of this tag until true neutrality can be established. Considering the number of impassioned editors who don't believe there can be a neutral point-of-view on this subject, I doubt this is going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not pointed to any instance of any quote being kept off by me due to any bias (in fact, I don't think you can find any). I have added quotations. And otherwise I have kept disruptions off the page and have ensured additions are formatted correctly and in accord with previsously established page consensus. I have consistently invited people to add quotations that support abortion. I have removed no such quotes. You can not point to any way in which my personal POV can be shown to improperly impact the page contents or breach wikiquote rules. Thank you. Mr. Grace

Can you please point to just one instance of the sabotage of any quotation that supports abortion? Likewise, you mention advocacy - but the only advocacy I have done is to add accurate verifiable quotations. My only goal is to ensure that accurate quotes that represent the mainstream views (which include the pro-life view) are present on the page. If you can point to any dearth of quotes for any particular view, I will be surprised. But any such dearth has nothing to do with advocacy by me. I still can't understand how my kee interest in this one page of wikiquote is so bothersome to you. The page has a bounty of quotations representating all views. You cannot refute that. You just keep repeating allegations that you cannot demonstrate to be true in the least. Mr. Grace

Thank you for the reminder that we need an Uncle Remus article here. To quote "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story":

Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. Right dar's whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose. De tar hilt 'im.

You may have all the time in the world to cajole a reaction out of me, but my interest is in maintaining and improving nearly 6,000 articles. My experience has informed me, as it probably has most of my fellow sysops, that no reasonable amount of involvement will prevent bad-faith edit wars between the two major factions in this article. The recent arguments between you and Catamorphism are an old song to us. Of course you feel that you are editing in good faith, and Catamorphism is the villain. Of course Catamorphism feels s/he is editing in good faith, and you are the villain. I'm sure you both have reasonable arguments (from within your own worldview) about why your edits are proper and the other's are not. I don't have time to deal with your inability to come to a consensus. All I can offer is ensuring that this article be clearly tagged as a POV dispute until both sides come to me with a mutually agreeable arrangement. Work it out between yourselves. If you can't do that, I can't help you. I will not respond to further cajoling from either of you, except to ensure that tag stays while the controversy exits. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that in fact you cannot point to any instance in which my editing has done anything other than ensure the abortion page represents ALL points of view. You have proven my point. Mr. Grace

I'm afraid your command of logic appears a bit faulty. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this particular case, it is explicitly absence of cooperation, and your refusal to accept this and to attempt to cast it as something else is exactly the kind of sophistry I've alluded to. Thank you for demonstrating (not proving) my point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Woopsie! You have DEMONSTRATED my point - I used the wrong word (flog me!!!). You get my drift, though. You are too busy to make a valid critique, so you make one based on your gut reaction. Of course, the critique you make really can't be that I am violating NPOV because there are no instances of that you can point to. And without some evidence of it, the critique is hot air from you. You have nothing objective upon which to base your charge. Perhaps you think wikimedia resources ought to be edited by gut reaction and whimsy. But fairminded people think objectivity is what matters. Mr. Grace

I simply repose my original questions - which you have failed to answer:

• Please explain how a diversity of quotes indicates a bias of any sort other than a bias toward diversity? After all is said and done, what grave errors have I committed?

Mr. Grace

I've blocked this user permanently, as from what I've observed, his only interest in the project is to troll. We're here to get work done, not to be harassed by trolls, and I see no reason to allow it to continue. Feel free to reverse me if you think he has something worthwhile to offer the site. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I may regret this, but I've reduced the permanent block on Mr. Grace to a 2-week block, after posting a lengthy explanation on his talk page. I agree that he has engaged in trolling, but I don't think that's his sole activity here. I reminded him how he might achieve his ostensible desire to remove the POV tag from Abortion, and (hopefully) made clear what will happen if he spends his time arguing with admins instead of focusing his efforts on working with the other editors to reach consensus on the article. I suppose it's likely that I'll have to intervene again in two weeks, but I'll take that responsibility. Thanks for your help, Essjay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"submit a quote"

This isn't so hard. Have the submit feature append it to the talk page of the article, using the existing "index.php?title=TITLE&action=edit&section=new" feature. Then the other editors would come later and see if it was notable and in the right place, and add it to the article proper. Sj 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, are you interested in helping with a regular review of what's new on wikiquote? A few lines every other week. Sj 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We already have people posting requests at Wikiquote:Requested entries. As far as I've noticed, virtually no one spends any time moving these simple requests to their appropriate articles. Multiply that by 6,000, and you've got a nightmarish mass of unpositioned quotes. (And don't even get me started on unsourced, junk Internet, and vanity quotes, which would really benefit from this stealth approach.) We might expect more direct effort by more involved editors on article talk pages, and we'd probably get it for extremely popular articles like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I haven't noticed this happening in the few instances where people have done this ad hoc. Like so many other good ideas for Wikiquote, it has no real chance of working until we get more regular, general-article editors.

As far as "what's new on Wikiquote", I barely feel I can keep up with what's old. I'm not infrequently surprised by "new" stuff I had no awareness of, and I'm a "seasoned" admin here. I can't stress enough how inadequate our oversight of this project is, despite considerable effort from a small number of hard-working editors. Perhaps you should talk to Kalki; he may be more encouraging. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I made a rare and brief post -incl apology to you.

Jeff, I made a rare and brief post in Abortion, addressing several topics, and weighing in as someone wanted other feedback. Plus, I apologized to you. Here is the most current perma-link diff:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=177859&oldid=177858#As_above

--GordonWattsDotCom 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi!

Thanks for such a warm welcome. :)

I made again some changes for the Star Trek article, I think i's beginning to look really good. I think that it's still missing is a nice Table Of Contents, the one it has now is a pain to read since it's as long as a Russian winter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimmo Laine (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Question

Jeff, is there any way to determine a user's IP address? I ask because I'm fairly sure that the new user Mudwomps is the same person that we have blocked in the past for adding nearly useless pages, expecting other editors to fix them for him. I've done so for a number of them today, but I'm a little tired of being bogged down by it. At the same time, I don't wish to see wq be filled with sloppy pages such as he is creating. ~ UDScott 17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey man listen don't block me because i will try on my own Mudwomps 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If your bogged down UD take a break... Mudwomps 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC) and don't call them "useless".

It is possible to use the CheckUser process to determine who a user is, but usage is extremely limited. I doubt anything that has happened on Wikiquote in my time has gone through enough of the required negotiation with disruptive users before a user check is approved. However, I have unilaterally blocked Mudwomps for 1 week for disruption. Such blocks are inherently controversial, so I've posted a note to their talk page about how to protest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of checkuser: Do you think it would be worthwhile for us to have a local checkuser here? I have (or at least, I believe I have) the requisite knowledge to use the interface and interpret the results; the process requires two checkusers before one will be appointed. I'd be happy to serve, if we have another admin who understands the workings of IP's and such well enough to interpret the results. As usual, I defer to your greater experience with the Wikiquote community to determine if it is something that should be proposed. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work, Jeff. I had wanted to block this user, and it's obvious that he is the same user that had submitted ridiculous articles in the past (and eventually been blocked for it). I was looking for a way to link his history with that from before so that I could block without having to go through the gradual warnings. The problem as I see it is that some of these problem users could simply keep changing their logins and continue to disrupt. The CheckUser feature seems like it would help (also in the case of 0Waldo), but I don't know the ends and out of it. ~ UDScott 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

With apologies to Jeff for co-opting his talk page, Checkuser is not a casual tool. One needs a knowledge of how IP addresses work, specifically how to identify addresses from the same block, determine if they are static or dynamic, as well as how dynamic they are (do they change every fifteen minutes like AOL, or do they change every three months), identify open proxies, and interpret the vast amount of data a checkuser request produces. (Every IP a given username has used, or every edit by an IP, including those from logged in accounts.) The interface itself does not require any skill to operate, but interpreting the results does take skill, and if done incorrectly, can improperly identify users as sockpuppets, or visa versa. Additionally, it requires a great deal of discretion; checkuser permission guarantees that you will, at some point, discover the IP addresses of logged-in users, and the privacy policy requires that such information be kept in the strictest of confidence. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Co-opt away, Essjay. ☺ Personally, I don't feel Wikiquote is ready for CheckUser. We don't have the resources or the infrastructure to provide a robust, multi-level complaint-and-review system that I believe is typically expected before CheckUser is considered an acceptable next step. (I have no experience with CheckUser requests, although I believe I have the network knowledge to perform them, but I'm aware of how sensitive the Foundation is to its use.) I suspect that an impartial Foundation observer would consider Wikiquote to be playing a bit too loose with its policies because of our limited resources, and the temptation to use this powerful but invasive tool would be too great for overburdened sysops. As far as justification, by Wikipedia standards, neither 0waldo nor Mudwomps (with their likely related IPs) rises to the level of disruption for which I'd expect the Foundation to approve, despite the tremendous burden their activities are to the project. (Besides, 0waldo is easy to identify, because he frequently edits without logging in, posting characteristic text in his different identities.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary refrain from Abortion edits

I'll comply with that. Thanks for your help! BTW, to your list of reasons why Mr. Grace might be considered a troll, I'd also add his comments on my talk page (which I had reverted before, but am leaving there for now to avoid taking advantage of his being blocked). Someone who has received as many warnings from admins as Mr. Grace probably shouldn't be warning others about policy violations. Catamorphism 01:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Editing Help

Jeff... could you help me with my Organized crime page please. An anonymous user came and either attempted to edit it helpfully or just decided to delete a load of stuff off the page. I wish to revert the page to my last edit. As I am a new user myself I don't really know how to do it. Any help would be appreciated. Thankyou. Giuseppe 11:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I've already reverted the changes and asked the user in question to refrain from deleting quotes. ~ UDScott 12:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, UDScott. I posted an explanation of the process on Giuseppe's talk page as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bram Cohen Quote

Hi. Thanks for the welcoming message. Today I was looking for Bram Cohen's quote "Give and ye shall receive" which I couldn't find here. Can I create a topic with just that? As for sources, I later found the quote on BitTorrent.com Introduction page as well as on Bram Cohen Quotes page, which could help starting an article on Cohen. Waiting for your advice. --Unbreakable_MJ 13:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I see you are a Wikipedia user, so you probably know how to create a new page from there. You can also use Help:Starting a new page#Using input box to start a new "people" article and fill in the details. There's a lot of boilerplate that you will want to remove for just a stub article, but this will show you the general outline of Wikiquote people articles. Either way, the most important things in this case (besides the quote itself) are to:

• include the Wikipedia link;
• place the quote under either "Sourced" or "Attributed" (depending on whether there is a uniquely identified source for the quote, like a specific book or news article);
• add a {{people-stub}} tag; and
• add a category (Category:Programmers, I'd suggest).

Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that was very helpful. Thank you. How's my 1st article (Bram Cohen)? --Unbreakable_MJ 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Your first article was far better sourced and structured than most editors'. There are a few issues of formatting, but it's much easier to fix formatting than to do a good sourcing job. Anyway, here are some observations:

• Current policy is to leave off quote marks around quotes, as the list format gives them their own line, and the absence eliminates the inner-quote problem.
• "Source:" is considered redundant, as a proper source citation should be an obvious source line.
• Article citations should include the article title and especially the date whenever possible. It's more important to identify when the quote was said or written than when it was accessed, although this info can be useful, too.
• If there's necessary contextual info (e.g., "about his Asperger's Syndrome"), it should be separated from the source, usually following it on a separate line (although some include it on the same line as the source if both are very short).
• We discourage links to other quote sites unless there's a compelling reason to include them. (Most of them are atrociously error-prone and utterly lacking in sources, anyway, so they're usually of little value other than starting points for robust Wikiquote articles.)
• Even if an external site is included, one shouldn't repeat the link with every quote. The only reason to include more than one link per source is if there is an anchor that takes the reader directly to the quote.

There are other minor quibbles about date formats and stub position, but these are even less critical than the above list. I've reformatted Bram Cohen along these lines to show you what we try to aim for. But as I said, this was a much more useful article right from the start than most new editors' (and quite a few not-so-new ones, too). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

IP block

Thanks for blocking 68.170.86.111, Jeffq. Much appreciated! -- Jaxl 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta for the welcome!

:-) JackyR 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

and thanks for welcoming me too!

Incidentally, my first attempt at getting a sourced quote to Wikiquote was deleted by another user, who claimed the source was "not reputable". I would question that. Who decides such matters? Revera 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy response to Revera posted at User talk:Revera#Maharaji (Prem Rawat). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta from me too. --Mais oui! 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome :-) A small request: Can you look at the question I posted on the Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talk page and give some advice? DarKNighT 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

oH jEFF

it's 0waldo. How are you doing? I just got back from a month in sunny California and noticed I was unblocked :) 0waldo 21:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff ! I need you help, they blocked me over at wikipedia for bashing the 3R rule! Please contact user Cburnett and vouch for my Caricature :) 0waldo 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC) THANKS PAL - You are i.n.a. GOLDEN shower at the end of the rainbow :)

Walter, I'm afraid you are operating under some misconceptions. First, I am not a good caricature (ha-ha) reference for you. You should recall that I have usually disagreed with your situation assessments and have several times blocked you for violating Wikiquote policies and practices. While I find your non-wiki work interesting and admit that there can occasionally be some rough charm to your discourses, you are far too confrontational and heedless of wiki practices, in my humble opinion, to merit serious attention in your pleas. Second, your postings often suggest a lack of awareness of the issues that people have with your editing. This makes you seem unable to comprehend the reasons why you are being blocked for these actions, which is probably why some of the WP editors are suggesting you have mental difficulties. (I am not a psychiatrist, but I think you just find this activity amusing and are quite aware of why you keep getting blocked.)

One establishes the respect of one's wiki peers by composing neutrally written material, based on verifiable information and preferably backed up with sources, that doesn't serve to promote one's own non-wiki work. I don't see that you will ever regain the assumption of good faith that you have lost until you spend a considerable amount of time and effort making edits that don't patently promote your own work. Since this appears to be your main interest in participating in MediaWiki projects, I, like many others, don't believe it's a good investment of my time to try to get you to change your behavior. But as you obviously know, there are times when the eternal optimist in me can't help trying. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you know, for the record, you are my totally favorite editor/sysop/neo-deity /etc., that hangs around this miserable place! I knew when I put it down my caricature request that you would not help me but I also knew that you would, which is what I like about you – seemingly definitive! I also like your composition skills and your ability to creatively express yourself in letter, and very much your tie-dye T shirt and the whole dimension persona. But I have to tell you, additionally, that you could have to come to the aid of brothers/comrades when they suffer from battle wounds, even if they are not close enough to conveniently pull them from the wrath of the enemy. An example might be: when all the other jack-legged, neo-editors, brainac-wannabe junior-pre-op-editors over at Wiki‘Pedia are pelting Waldo with dirt-clods, old smelly tennis-pumps, blackened avocadoes and the like, I would like to feel the comfort in knowing that you would be there for me (even incognito as an added dimension or preferably a batman outfit) to slip me a large, unused galvanized post 1959 garbage can lid to aid your scoundrel friend! Anyway, enough of this crap shoot: I have successfully obtained my State of California blue handicapped place card, conquered my fear of coming out of the closet concerning my official braindecapped status - I can now fully park in and around the L.A. area for no coins bro! I remain, fully and totally benevolent to the keepers of the free media at large in and around the South Bay area moreover I promise always to appear myself and/or others as applicable to all. 0waldo 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm sorry I did not get back to you sooner :)

Jeff :) Can I NOW add a page of quotes now for walter muncaster because He (he he) is quoted in December 2000 of Computer Graphics World and it is a world distributed magazine and he is just as notable as hell? Or should I just stick with Bartlett's Familiar Quotations and by the way, why do we even need WikiQuote, anyhow? if we have Bartlett's... 0waldo 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I was going to email you but I can't so here is my message for you: I did a really cool tile today, it took about five hours and it is very much like a pyramid/Egyptian type of motif, please look at it on my website and please tell me if you like it or no ok? Thanks bro! 0waldo 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, it's 3/25/2006 and I just wanted to tell you to go and look at the tile I did today! I SWEAR it is the best I think I have ever done! Please look and tell me what you think ok? THANKS BRO! 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff! you SO have to go and see this what I did; a caricature of Jimbo Whales as a commie party boss and I know you are going to love it!!! I posted it on his picture page! here is the link PLEASE go look and tell me what you think!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures 0waldo 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, it's 4/6/2006 and I just wanted to tell you to go and look at the tile I did today! I SWEAR it is the best I think I have ever done! (OK, I know I said that last time!) Please look and tell me what you think ok? THANKS BRO! 0waldo 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! My newest quote!!! "Life is a prison and GOD is the warden". Pretty good yes? 0waldo 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! My newest quote!!! "Life: sprinkle your stardust and see what happens". Pretty good yes? Also, please go and see the newest artwork that I have done. Have a good week/month/year! Waldo. 0waldo 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) I'm still banned at wikipedia for some freekin reason!

Interwiki user accounts

Hi Jeffq, thanks for your Welcome.

I see from your homepage that your wikipresence spans several wikiprojects and languages... Perhaps you've got an idea about how to manage user accounts on multiple sites. Should I have an account for each site? Eg. an account for en.wikipedia.org, another for it.wikipedia.org, another for en.wikiquote.org...?

Ste 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any great ideas. Currently, you need a separate account on each project in each language. (I have accounts on all the English projects I've listed, plus a few in some other languages that I haven't, but I've been lucky because "jeffq" isn't a terribly common user handle.) Based on the discussions at m:Single login specifications and its older version m:Single login, I'd say we're still a long way from implementing a single user account and/or name across all projects, an obviously useful but extremely challenging feature. (I'm encouraged by the possibility of cross-project new-message notification, which seems to me might be workable even if we don't get single login implemented.) I recently added my wikipresence userboxes precisely because I wanted a quick means to jump between projects without sifting through my browser bookmarks. Some folks have simpler ordinary links. Some people use redirects to their main account, usually en:Wikipedia. These don't actually automatically redirect to the listed page (as of the current MediaWiki 1.6alpha version), but do provide quick access to the desired project. Many users tell readers to post messages to them on a single site, but I'm against this personally, because I feel that discussions about a project should be recorded in that project. Anyway, that's my 2¢ worth of observations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thank you for the welcome Jeff! Quoter11 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a retard.

I Said that because its true. Thake that! :p

I was only deleting Jaxl's vandalism, but you banned me when I kept reverting it. You and him couldn't even listen to my arguements. I can see that because Jaxl (That, and your name has to be 2 of the stupidest names ever!) that he has "registered" means he can call on you to ban me. I can see that this is the middle ages that "Wiki" Quote are living in, sigh.

Jaxl, Jeff Q What the hell kind of names are those anyway? You are both probably gay, in fact I'll bet you have great gay relationships. I'll bet you 2 are g4y luvvrz!. ARENT YOU?????

Anyway, you don't have to ban me again. I'll ban myself so you wont put in all that effort to click on the "ban button" as I know it would for your weak little fingers to do all that work!

so long!

--68.170.86.111 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Essjay's considerate removal of the above personal attack for two reasons:

1. I want editors to feel they can express themselves, even vent if they need to.
2. Such vicious diatribes usually defeat themselves by providing evidence to neutral observers that the editor is not following Wikiquette.

As this juvenile rant also besmirches Jaxl, allow me to point out that this anonymous user seems oblivious to the fact that any Wikiquotian can review his edits and Jaxl and my reversions at any time, proving to themselves that this anon committed all the acts he is accused of, and that our actions are as we stated. Convenient links to this evidence are provided at User talk:68.170.86.111. I can only hope that future users of this IP address might redeem its reputation by contributing usefully to Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Danny is a steward

Danny is one of the trusted stewards for all the Wikimedia projects, and I assume his block was precautionary based on the user's behavior elsewhere. The software itself has been developed to make many forms of vandalism harder, which saves us a great deal of trouble, but there were a few times early on where I encountered project hopping vandals, and decisions to block by the stewards and developers can definitely make many of our own problems simpler, even when they might seem over-zealous from our limited perspectives.
While I'm here, I also wish to give an appreciative note on taking on the greetings task lately. We probably ought to start considering another round of adding a few more admins to the roster, because things are definitely getting busier here. ~ Kalki 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for administrator

I'd be honored. Since there's less to do at Wikipedia these days (especially since we now have bots reverting vandalism automatically!), I'd be happy to contribute more time here keeping Wikiquote vandal-free. -- Jaxl 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and Reverted your user page

I looked in to say "thanks" for your putting some info on my talk page, and found your user page vandalized, so I undid that. Just thougth I'd leave a quick note here to explain all that. --TravisM 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming

Feels good already :) thank you, Jeff - Introvert 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. : ) FloNight 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

QOTD

Kalki and Essjay, please advise and/or take action on the following problem.

I noticed that the 29 March quote of the day is not displaying on Main Page. Clicking on its red link, I found that Essjay had deleted Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 29, 2006 without explanation. I couldn't see anything obviously wrong with this Kalki-composed page, so I restored it. However, this didn't restore the quote to the main page, even after I did six forced-reloads. Could you folks try to get this very visible aspect of the main page working, and settle whatever the problem may have been that inspired the deletion? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that was my mistake; I've been working on cleaning out the old QOTD archives for some time, and seeing the QOTD page pop up on my watchlist today reminded me I hadn't finished. Basically, I've been doing wholesale deletes of the individual-day pages, as they are archived in a monthly archive (we discussed doing so, I believe it was on the QOTD page, but may be mistaken). Anyhow, when I was going through March (2004, 2005, 2006) I accidentally deleted todays; to be truthful, I wasn't even thinking that there would be one transcluded onto QOTD. I'll get it taken care of. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

VFDA renewal

I have no word enough appreciate you. It is a blessing to have an occasion to work with you, so a nice and industrious editor. --Aphaia 09:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the Welcome Jeff. :)
Mostly I write on the Russian Wikipedia and ru Wikiquote. My English knowledges is so poor therefore I will use this account to set intewiki links to Russian Wikiquote. — Solon 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Пожалуйста. И каждый вклад помогает. Or, as the Russian proverb apparently goes, "Вода́ка́пля ка́мень то́чит". Не знаю почти никакого русского, но удивляя вещи можно выполнить с Babelfish и немногой работа. ;-) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jeffq, now that my RfA is officially closed, I just wanted to say thanks for nominating and supporting me. I look forward to working with you and the rest of the sysop team here. If you ever need me for any reason, just let me know. Thanks again! -- Robert 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aims

I'll gather my strength a bit and have a go! Thanks for the positive feedback and pointers about where to start. I'm sure it will, as you say, be the Usual Suspects, but at least we'll then have a position (and page!) against which people can react! I don't see me making a good project leader, so won't volunteer. (I've spread myself so thin I'm letting plenty of people down already...) Cheers, JackyR 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we all feel fairly thin-spread as well. (I know I do.) It's funny how even a completely voluntary project like Wikiquote can make you feel responsible for so much! We'll take whatever you wish to contribute. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

QOTD

I did fix the Main page problem — thanks for noting it. I don't feel I've taken a great deal of flack, but I did tend to refrain from making suggestions for a while and tried to more often simply select among the choices others had made, but activity from the few others regularly involved gradually diminished and I was back to making selections entirely on my own again, at least for a while. I plan to change the structure on all the pages so that the previously chosen quotes come before the suggestions for a date, but will probably do that gradually in coming months. I don't have much time for a fuller response today, but I do think the Murrow quote is a very good one. ~ Kalki 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

References

I think I fixed your references problem, check out the message I left on Kalki's talk page. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! I suppose I should have been able to deduce this, but I'm afraid I'm assimilating MediaWiki configuration stuff more slowly than I'd like. I'm glad it doesn't require a reboot or other serious server action. As far as the <ref name="VALUE"> issue goes, I'm following the suggested practice of a name that is associated with the work cited. It's unfortunate that "pq", which I meant to represent Peter's Quotations, looks like a generic variable name, which I suspect is how you interpreted it. As the reverted Laurence J. Peter article shows, regardless of its meaning, it works. "multiple" makes some sense in the current situation, where only one work is cited multiple times, but would be confusing if even one more work with 2 or more citations is added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad it's all worked out; I wasn't entirely sure if I had gotten the gist of what was supposed to be done, but when I managed to get the references section to look like the one you pointed out on WP, I figured it would probably be right. If you have other Mediawiki: space questions, feel free to ask; even if I don't look like I'm around much, I always check in at the beginning of the day for new messages and/or things I should look at. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

hi jeff

from waldo. 0waldo 03:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi, thanks for your welcome notice.

My interest in quotations began before my interest in independent/interdisciplinary studies back when making tie-die sweat shirts became a really cool way to cover up spilling too much bleach in the laundry.

Just like a tie-die shirt can show a person has "Been there!" (anonymous) and may have had a similar experience a famous quotation can likewise show that a person has had a similar experience.

Airhead 12:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

?

Don't welcome me. You don't know me. If I wanted your welcome I would have told you so you God forsaken hippie. MegaloManiac 13:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! I'll have to show my friends your comment. I'm just about the last person in the world someone would call a hippie. As the saying goes, "Don't judge a book by its cover". ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. And why is there nothing on Vorarephilia here? MegaloManiac 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably because nobody so far wanted to create one. But it's a legitimate (if yucky) topic, so you're welcome to be bold and do so yourself. However, please note that we prefer reliably-sourced quotes at Wikiquote. (Sources can be filled in later, but I don't anticipate many people will want to touch this topic.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you like the wikimedia equavelent of that old dude in wal-mart who hands out stickers and says hi? MegaloManiac 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except I get paid even less (i.e., zero). Actually, anyone can do this for anyone else. It's not only a nice way to start off a new user's wiki experience, but also a way to provide useful links that may help them avoid common mistakes (thus selfishly helping more experienced wiki editors who otherwise spend time and effort fixing those mistakes). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok so I can do this? Could I add to it? to you know disturbe them for life? Any ways I am not that new. I usualy work on wikipedia. Check me out there Wikipedia:User:MegaloManiac MegaloManiac 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you create a page?

I've just signed up, I was wondering how do you start a page? Inferno69.34.35.5

I usually respond to questions on user's talk pages, but your IP address suggests that it is shared by other users. (I couldn't find a username "Inferno", as implied by your signature, in use.) If you've signed up, it's best to ask questions while logged in, so replies don't confuse other users of the address. To answer your question, however, we have a handy page, Help:Starting a new page, for this very subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Jeff, Thanks for the RfA nomination and support. I appreciate the vote of confidence and I'm looking forward to helping out as a sysop here. —LrdChaos 21:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the fold, LrdChaos! At the very least, this should make anti-vandalism work easier. ☺ Feel free to ask me any questions, especially if you run into something here that varies from your experience at Wikipedia and would like a quick explanation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hey, from thewolfstar

Hey again, Jeff Q. I'm more awake now and can think more clearly. I will link to the appropriate article. I was so sleepy last night, that I couldn't comprehend simple concepts. Thanks for the tips. And again thanks for the friendly welcome to Wikiquote. Any time you'd like to leave a comment on my talk page, please feel free! MaggieThewolfstar 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lehi (group)

Today I realised for the first time that you deleted the article Lehi (group) that I created in March. Probably it should have been on Wikisource rather than here. Please fetch the text from the archives and get it to me somehow (mail to nought_0000@yahoo.com or subpage of my Talk page, for example). That will save me another afternoon of work. Thanks. --Zero0000 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Shawn

I want to make it clear that I had no intentions of annoying anyone. My intentions were for the best. I never insulted anyone! I am outraged that you accuse me of that! And, I never meant for any of this to happen, all I have to say is I am sorry for the way this all turned out and I am sorry for wasting your time. Now I only ask for forgiveness. If you could at least grant me that. Oh and I did read the policy things but I didn't understand it to well. Auraschild 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Marley quotes

I did some quick research, and the writing credits for "Positive Vibration" are to Vincent Ford, but there are indications that Marley simply gave Ford credit for these and other lyrics. Taking up the suggestion for something by Marley I have found a couple that, while not fully sourced as yet, I find plausible and not likely to become disputed:

"I don't have prejudice against myself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white." ~ Bob Marley

"Positive vibrations man. That's what makes it work. That's reggae music. You can't look away because it's real. You listen to what I sing because I mean what I sing, there's no secret, no big deal. Just honesty, that's all." ~ Bob Marley

I don't know if you will see this in time to weigh in on these, but I will have to make a selection within the next hour, and be out of contact for a couple hours after that. ~ Kalki 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I always trust your judgment, Kalki, but if you have time to read this, I prefer the "positive vibrations" prose quote. I'm coming to the belief that endless talk of prejudice does little more than to perpetuate the problem. If I had time, I'd find a quote from Heinlein's Moon Is a Harsh Mistress that talks about a future North American population that is the last bastion of black/white racism simply because it tries so hard to act like it isn't. I picked the Marley lyric, even though I'm not a big fan, because I liked the positive sentiment and the idea that it had nothing to do with racism or other weighty issues. (Well, re-watching The Mighty Quinn a week ago helped a little. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

etiquette

Although it is not strictly against policy, it is typically not considered good wiki etiquette to remove or comment-out other users' postings to your talk page. User talk pages exist for the purpose of communication with other users, and it is as important for other users to be able to see what has been posted to you as it is for you to read it. For instance, the standard welcome message informs other users that you have been given some basic information on the operation of Wikiquote, so newer postings may refer to it or assume that you have been properly informed. (I realize that you are also a Wikipedia user, but there are some differences between WP and WQ, so it's still a good idea to review the WQ-specific information.) If you want to "get rid" of something that you've dealt with, you can archive it and leave a link to your talk-page archive on the main user talk page, which de-clutters the page while allowing others to review your earlier discussions. (This is the same practice that is encouraged on Wikipedia.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's my talk page and if I don't want something there I have the right to delete, regardless of etiquette. It's a welcome message, one that I have seen before and don't need. Thanks for your input, but, just like the welcome message, yours will be removed as well. My talk page is for important discussion and messages only, and a welcome message or a message telling me about proper etiquette (which by the way I am not new to wikipedia, or it's sister sites) it just a waste of my talk page's space, and wiki's server space. Thanks again. Bignole 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block Warning

Will do, Sir. My bad, I know this will sound like an excuse but I've just been really upset the past few days because I have been getting weird e-mails from U.S. Reps. and from some guy welcoming me to a group I never joined, an dthe promoting thing is so people will go to the website and get their quotes and poems and stuff known. I do not see me advertising myself in any way. Once again I am sorry and I do understand the drastic actions, and I feel so many edits were needed because I add them as I come across them in my saved archives, and when I retype them I tend to mispell them thus making me need to edit them again. Unless you are talking about the vfd page, then.. well I really just wanted people to see my quotes and I wanted them to say, but as I said it doesn't matter now because I have them on my website now. One more thing, and this is irrelevant to anything on wiki, but I have my E.U. email account set to save all sent emails, and when I got an email from the US Reps on that address, I had no record of sending them an e-mail and looking at my firefox history I was never on a gov site. So I thught maybe I set it up wrong but when i sent an email to make sure it was saved, is there a way to figure out what is going on? I would really appreciate it if you replied, thank you. Auraschild 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. E.U. equals Eshema United, which is the name of my website. Just thought I'd tell you incase you were wondering.(Auraschild 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

---

I also just wanted to tell that, you guys should really watch what you say, and I dont mean that in a threat way, i mean it as... well, if you said that stuff to a suicidal person, they probably would have been dead by this hour. Sorry, I just thought I bring that up... and now I know you'll criticize me for it and I am ready for whatever you have to say back Auraschild 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

About a quote

"Anyone who believes that suicide is a coward's choice has never truly faced their own death." is a quote on your one page. Well... I faced death many times but I still think suicide is a cowards choice. (And I know you will somehow make this into a self promotion thing) When I was 6 or 7 I was down in southern Ohio with my grandma and grandpa. I was in the pool alone, and I was sucked into the drains current. I remember that day... Its so clear and fresh in my mind. It felt like forever staring. I stared getting sleepy, and then a brilliant white light blinded me, I was so calm and relaxed. I looked straight ahead and saw an angel, and I didn't believe in God or angels at the time. She was so beautiful, so magnificant. She stared at me and then memories flooded my mind. As soon as the memories reached my swimming classes I kind of followed what I was taught to do when drowning, but it didn't work.. The drain was to strong... But then it stopped, it was like a hand letting go of me and started floating. I was barely awake, I was gasping for air. Then I thought I heard someone say it's not your time... but I wasn't sure.

I just really felt like I should say that. I see suicide as an everlasting option but I also see it as a cowards option, I myself used to be suicidal, and I have to admit it it does take guts to commit suicide.. or attempt to at least. I look back at that me and ask myself why... why was I like that... I had no reason, there are people millions of times worse of than I am. But I never really had friends, everyone knew me, but they weren't my friends, and I think the lack of friends really got to me. I know you probably don't care but all I am saying is It may take alot of guts to kill yourself, but takes alot more to endure the pain and move on. I myself am suprised to see myself living today, back in 7th grade I didn't think I'd make it past 8th grade. I guess there was always a small spark of hope that kept me going... Even then I helped others, even though I was in asuicidal state, I always like helping others... I guess that's why I volunteer alot. Okay, well see you around! And have a nice day! or night depending on your location! Auraschild 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm Shawn Triscari

Ummm.... Mr. Wikiquote person Shawn Triscari is a awesome person and is very very helpful. He's helped me, my friend, my friends friend and alot of other people. He is very smart and smart so he knows alot. He can help you to if you wanted ^-^ (Just a thought) but like you should respect the fact that he's like doing the best out of (Who I think) everyone. His quotes and stuff for most people are actually understandable unlike some other quoters. SO yeah just to let you know Shawns better. He is like umm a very awesomist person yup. So be nice please and if you have tips or something for him then nicely let him know and he'll think about it. So yeah he could really help someone big time you never know man. Give him a shot! ^-^ If he did something wrong then like umm forgive him because im sure he did'nt mean to do whatever it was. People can put quotes and stuff on his website but they turn agianst him now is that his fault no. People can just be down right rude mr.! He always means well ^-^! Thanks bunches... I think....

                                 ~Kaji~

My RfA

Thanks for your support in making me a sysop. As you had mentioned in your vote, I like to go through "attributed" quotes and find out what can be sourced or else discovered as misattributed. When I first came upon Wikiquote, my aim was to add sourced quotations to pages and to create additional pages for notable people. Although I have done some of this and will continue to do more, I find myself drawn most of all to the goal of whittling down those vast blocks of unsourced quotes which have dominated pages. I will also, of course, be available for other duties as I learn them. Best wishes, InvisibleSun 05:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

I certainly don't mind the changes to my user page. I've been a fan of the Wikipedia page on IPU for quite some time and any opportunity to spread the word is welcome! And I should have updated the bold/italics on my page as well, but that was copied directly from my Wikipedia user page, written before I knew what I was doing over there.... See you around! Wyatt Riot 14:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for the tip about moving my Firefly sandbox page to a subpage. I [i]was[/i] thinking of doing that last night, but it was a particularly lazy night for me. It's a miracle I even registered for Wikiquote! --Skrapion 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the welcome. Whopper 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome Jeffq. I'm looking to put together a Wikiquote page of quotes from a famous politician. Are there any article here that you think would serve as good examples? Thanks again. RockinRob 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a template. I have a book that has quotes cite from other sources. Do you know offhand how I would cite that? Something like "Quote" in "book" from "original source"? RockinRob 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote books are notorious for failing to cite specific sources of their own. (I was horribly dismayed to see that Laurence J. Peter, he of the infamous "Peter Principle", wrote a book, Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time, containing hundreds of quotations without a single source, even for those he himself said. Still, such a book is at least a start. I usually do something like the following, which I recently added to Logic in a mood for extreme precision:

• He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
  • Jesus; quoted in The Bible, Matthew 12:30 (KJV)

This separates the quotation (and possibly its date and original source) from the publication in which it is readily found. Another example, along the same thematic lines, would be:

• Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
  • George W. Bush, 2001-09-20; "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People", White House press release, accessed 2006-05-23

This may seem cumbersome to some, but it's important to note both the date and situation a quote was made in and its reliable source, especially when the original is a speech which may be reported slightly differently by many parties. This is especially true for politicians, who never lack from media who wish to misquote them or cast their actual words in the best- or worst-possible light. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick welcome

I don't expect I'll spend much time here, but thank you anyway! --Connel MacKenzie 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Bride

Jeff, I saw your reversion of the spelling change to Inigo's name, and while I do understand that both WP and IMDB spell it this way, I did want to point out that when he says his name (in his famous line about killing his father), he does pronounce it "Inyeego", even though Fezzik pronounces it more like In-i-go; hence my change. But I'm certainly willing to let it go as is. ~ UDScott 13:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have the film in front of me, so I can't confirm. But perhaps a better resolution might come from checking the novel, which presumably would have the definitive spelling. I'll be at my local library in a few hours, so I'll check it out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked a library copy and found it written as "Inigo" there as well. I've added a note to Talk:The Princess Bride to alert future editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge

As it happens, Jeff, Coolidge was born John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. The vandal on his page, after making some edits, had deleted all his actual damage. I had noticed what he was doing earlier, but I haven't been sending warnings to people who vandalize and then reverse themselves. What's our practice about that? Should I be warning them anyway? InvisibleSun 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No policy that I'm aware of, which usually means we follow general Wikipedia practice if we know it. What I usually do if all someone does is self-revert nonsense is to assume they were test-editing (however rude or silly the "test") and post them a manual version of {{test}} which says something like "it's not a good idea, even if you self-revert". In fact, I just now decided to get off my lazy butt and make a template of it. Try {{test1-selfrv}} out. In the case where someone does multiple "tests" that include a self-reversion, I typically cite the worst case and/or include links to each edit in a spate, more to warn other vandal patrollers and to make blocking cases than to inform the editor that they're busted. Oh, and I updated the article to show Coolidge's full name. Thanks for the tip. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for your warm welcome : ) MPerel 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks also for updating On the Jews and Their Lies to bring it up to Wikiquote standard. MPerel 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for getting the revert for me! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Jeff, thanks for the welcome! Cheers, Khoikhoi 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Philip Schaff and Luther's Bible

Please reduce the Philip Schaff on Luther's Bible article to a few essential quotes immediately, as its current state appears to be a major copyright violation. While we welcome starting articles that will be built up over time, we cannot similarly allow massive copyvio articles that need trimming to remain on the site over time, as they will be spread over the Internet by Wikiquote-copying bots in as little as a day or two. If the article is blanked or trimmed before you do this, you can use the history tab of the article to recover the original material from which to select excerpts, so you don't have to retype them. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I will trim it down as you request, but the material is copyright 1910 and completely in public domain. The length is problematic, but there is no chance of copyvio here. Cheers, --Drboisclair 13:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know that this isn't a copyvio. However, Wikiquote's purpose is not to include huge excerpts of any material. It focuses on pithy quotes. We've had discussions in the past about just how long quotes might reasonably be. Although there has been no consensus per se, the maximum I've ever seen discussed is perhaps three paragraphs. This goes well beyond that. One thing to consider when trimming is what the point of the quote is. Most long passages contain essential ideas that are phrased or summarized in only a sentence or two. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Well that was fast; the ink hardly had time to dry! Thanks for the welcome. Delta x 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Barbarella cleanup

I'm not clear on why you tagged Barbarella for cleanup. I did notice that the "Dialogue" section was titled "Quotes" and that the IMDb link was broken, but the page seemed otherwise well-formed. (I fixed those things, as well as changing HTML character entities to UTF-8 characters.) If I missed something, please let me know, as I've removed the cleanup tag. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I see you changed back a few of the things I had done to this page. I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I am a bit confused by a couple of things. Some of the lines you moved back to the Dialogue section are lines from a single character (and as such would seem to be more appropriate for individual quotes in the appropriate section, above the dialogue). Also, some of what you did does not seem to follow the film template. Your change of the quote by Pygar (in the Others section) doesn't seem to be the way films are done, with the attribution after the quote, rather than before it. Also, your italicizing of the character names in the Cast section is new to me. And I also thought that we tried to include a category for the decade a film fits into (which you removed). In the end, as I said, I don't really care, but I wanted to verify your changes, which seem to be different from what other film pages are doing (and what I have been doing with film pages). These are certainly small matters, but I know you share my desire to work out the details and sometimes to sweat the small stuff. ~ UDScott 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I had started an explanation earlier of what I had done and why, but dumped it out of sheer apathy. (I've been suffering from this disease for a while now.) But you certainly deserve an explanation for my actions. To sum up:

• The loss of the year category was a simple error, which I've rectified.

• I also failed to notice the italicization in the cast section. I have no idea why I did that when I created the article! Now that you've pointed out this oddity, I've reapplied your fix.

• My passion for sourcing makes me want to include everything in Dialogue as an approximation of page-number use for books. (This also requires quotes to be in chronological order, as I always argue.) I've thought about recommending timecodes as source information, but I keep bumping up against my own sense of what the community can be expected to do, and film and TV show articles are already the hardest ones to do correctly. I haven't objected to solo quotes under character headings, but if one or the other should be sacrificed, I say the solo ones should go, because sourcing (and the subsequent ease of verification) is what differentiates Wikiquote from other quote websites. Some modest duplication (without advertising it) seems a reasonable middle course.

• Wikiquote:Templates/Films and Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows were largely created by User:MosheZadka during a flurry of policy work. (I created the individual template pages, but only by copying Moshe's work from Wikiquote:Templates.) These formatting guidelines were based on existing formats that I had pushed for over a year ago and implemented on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Mystery Science Theater 3000. (Those formatting rules themselves were determined in a dialog largely between myself and User:Jeandré, which I'm afraid went mostly my way after Jeandré faded from the scene. To this day, I feel guilty about reformatting Firefly, which he created and effectively introduced me to.) At that time of Moshe's work, there was no single way to do things. Moshe wanted to formalize my Buffy practice, the 2-4 other active editors at the time went along, so he did so. (That's the way WQ often goes, as you know.) I didn't say much about little things at the time, because it's hard enough to change policy here, and I was busy with VFD reform (which still isn't done). But for the aforementioned sourcing reason, I never agreed with including dialog-like formatting (which is already complicated) in the solo-quote section. (If a quote's value is in dialog exchange, it belongs in Dialogue.) We have another standard for unsourced solo quotes that is much more widespread — the very simple, very obvious "quote ~ quotee" form. It's not needed for solo quotes from characters with enough material to rate their own heading. The alternative "* quote / ** source" format seems needlessly complex if all it does is supply the quotee. Therefore, I went with the more recognized form for "Others".

• Ultimately, I strongly believe that the focus of these articles should be on the dialog, with only pithiest, most memorable solo quotes listed outside of Dialogue for emphasis. There should also be little, or better yet, no stage directions or contexts, as they should not be needed for the pithiest quotes. One of the benefits of the annoyingly complex dialog formatting is that it can more easily accomodate these things if necessary.

I can be a bear about these small matters, but I've seen many experiments tried over the past 2 years, and my head is full of observed but unwritten (or written in too many scattered places) consequences of these variations. I wish I could summon the energy to write all this stuff up in a single place, but even if I did, I'm afraid it would be so ponderous that it might stifle productive alternatives and simply frustrate people who are trying to learn "the system". I'm really hoping that community participation here will grow so much that my voice will become a much smaller one on these issues. I guess what I'm saying in my meandering way is that you and everyone should feel free to fight back on these issues, when you think that they are important. But I also don't want to be too locked into templates and policies that were created by one or two people at a time, most of whom aren't even actively editing anymore. Until we get much more general participation, most of these practices simply reflect the strong opinions of a single editor, and I'm one of the guiltiest in this. (And if you think this was a ponderous explanation, you should try reading the volumes of commentary I've made in the past 2 years on many of these individual formatting issues, across the talk pages of many article, policy, draft, user, and experimental pages. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Marvell's Coy Mistress

"Thorough" isn't a typo: it's an older version of "through." It would appear that Birrell was modernizing the line to make it more understandable to more modern-day readers. It's always debatable how much the spelling of earlier authors should be modernized for the reader (I was thinking, in fact, of making a Village Pump topic about this). In some older writers I've been working on, like Thomas Browne, I've gone along with changing "mee" to "me," for example, since it doesn't really do anything to compromise the original. (For an example of how things would look if we kept to the complete archaic spellings, see Talk: Mary I of England.) On the other hand, I'd stick with forms like "dost" and stopp'd," for instance, since I think it's going too far to change them and it's not all that hard for us to see what they mean.

In this case, though, I'd argue for staying with "thorough," since changing it to "through" lops off a syllable and alters the meter, each line requiring eight syllables. - InvisibleSun 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks for the etymological lesson. You bring up another interesting issue that has yet to be explored at Wikiquote. I'm not sure how I'd want to represent this, myself. I tend to favor original texts, but I haven't really thought about English so old that its meaning ends up obscure or even misinterpreted. (I'd never even looked at our Geoffrey Chaucer article until this made me think of it.) For now, I concur with your preference. I've reverted my change to "Coy Mistress" and posted a note about this to the reference desk. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Films

Don't worry JeffQ, you didn't scare me off, (and by the way, I am a "him"). Actually, I agree. Star Trek Movies probably should be 10 seperate articles, but until I, or someone else, has the chance to do that, I think that having a seperate article for the films is better than having the films with the articles for their respective series (Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation). Formatting one article is easier than formatting ten. I will take your suggestion of renaming the article Star Trek films, however. By the way, it was I who initially suggested the the new article in Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series#Form a new section called Star Trek Movies before I became a member. Thanks for your help. CALQL8 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you're right about a "films" article being better than the messy TV-and-film combo across two articles. But since the basic formatting has already been done, I've gone ahead and created the 10 film articles. I still regret not taking action on Star Wars, but I care less about it than Star Trek, so I pushed aside some other stuff and spent the 45 minutes it took to get them all established. I'd appreciate it if you could look them over and tweak anything I missed. I've replaced the w:List of Star Trek films link (a WP article whose case I had to fix — grr) with individual WP film article links for each, added an IMDb link per film, and added the films to the "See also" sections. What I haven't done yet is create proper intros (usually 1-3 sentences from the WP film article) or add the cast. (I also haven't added taglines, which I don't usually care about, or individual quotes, which I prefer not to generate, as I believe the dialog format is better for sourcing purposes.) Anyway, they're started, so we should probably redirect Star Trek films and all their current variants to Star Trek, which has all this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JeffQ, before you go through the trouble, I already fixed the links in the TOS movie articles in Wikipedia, but not the TNG movies. CALQL8 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Too late. While I was tweaking some other things, I removed the unnecessary parameters from the WQ links. I just finished the TNG films, too. By the way, it occurred to me that the Star Trek navigational footer template in use in the WP articles could be adapted for use here, if you want to take a crack at that sometime. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for restoring ST5 to Star Trek. I got myself so bollixed up between Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country that when I worked on undoing some dumb mistakes, I created another one by deleting ST5 from my master list. I also made the same mistake when fixing w:List of Star Trek films, but that one I eventually caught myself. I swear it wasn't a Freudian slip! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help JeffQ. One other thing I need help with, something I don't know how to do yet. We need to remove my Star Trek films article. I was thinking we could have it redirected to Star Trek, which now includes a list of the movies. How do we do this? CALQL8 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. To redirect an article, just replace the entire content of the old article with the following line:

#REDIRECT [[New article title]]

Thank you very much for working on these articles. Between you and a few other editors, Wikiquote's Star Trek articles are getting some long-needed attention. Now, if we could only find some conscientious Star Wars fans… ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quoting from quote books

Quote books are notorious for failing to cite specific sources of their own. (I was horribly dismayed to see that Laurence J. Peter, he of the infamous "Peter Principle", wrote a book, Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time, containing hundreds of quotations without a single source, even for those he himself said. Still, such a book is at least a start. I usually do something like the following, which I recently added to Logic in a mood for extreme precision:...

Thanks for the response Jeff, I should elaborate. I have a book of quotes from former Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo called "The Sayings of Chairman Frank", put out by the Americans for Democratic Action. A typical entry might be something like this:

-I like art. It was us Italians who started most of it." Daily News 5-24-72

Basically the book lists quotes, and then sources a Philadelphia newspaper or magazine. If I used this book as a source would I say for example, -quote from "The Sayings of Chairman Frank" page 37, or would I say -quote from the Philadelphia Daily News, or would I say something else entirely?

I can verify the quotes in other references I have if needed, but if I could save a little bit of work while still being accurate, I'd like to do that. Thanks again. RockinRob 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You remind me that we sorely need a Wikiquote:Sourcing quotes policy page to clarify these things. Right now, most of it is driven by largely unwritten practices, based partly on w:Wikipedia:Citing sources and other WP policies and partly on historical practice, bolstered by latter-day editors (like myself) who have been fighting to signficantly improve the state of sourcing here.

For now, I'd recommend that you include the supposed original source at a minimum. Anything else is third-hand at best. After all, we don't really know if author himself is also repeating something he read somewhere else, so the closest source to the original is always desirable. (Of course, we might expect Rizzo to know where his own quotes are printed, but the general principle is closest-is-best.) If the closest source is sufficiently specific, I don't usually bother with where I discovered it, as it's only being reported by the latter. In your example, however, the cited source fails to mention where in the rather considerable length of the Philadelphia Daily News of 24 May 1972 this quote appears. Usually, the minimum specific news source should include an article title. (By the way, always format dates so that they are unambiguous. American (and probably European) authors and publishers tend to ignore the fact that U.S. and European date practices frequently have the month and date mutually reversed. The two best ways to avoid confusion are (A) to spell out the month and (B) to use date links, e.g., May 24, 1972. Either will present the day unambiguously to all readers. See w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day for how this works.)

Personally, I'm undecided about further information if the closest source isn't sufficiently specific. One the one hand, having a specific indirect source (Chairman, p. 37) provides at least one specific source. On the other hand, it doesn't add much to the verifiability of the quote, unless Chairman has a bibliography with more specific data. The goal in sourcing is to make it as easy as possible for our fellow readers and editors to be able to verify a quote, since the entire community forms the "editorial board" of Wikiquote. Sorry I can't be more specific myself. ☺

One last note: if you cite any work with page numbers, always remember to include the ISBN in the citation, or, if one doesn't exist, the publisher, edition, and year. (All of these are part of a proper citation, but if you're going to "cheat", as we often do, the ISBN makes it easy to look up the other info.) This data will give others a fighting chance to interpolate the location of a quote in a different edition with a different page count. (For that reason, the total number of pages is a good idea, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your thorough response, I knew when I saw "Jeff Q as a dimension" as the caption for your picture after I got your welcome message that you would be a good editor to query. Your advice is excellent, and I will folllow it. In this specific case, I will use the quote book to go find primary sources in my local college library, and in the future I will use as credible and easily verifiable sources as possible for articles. RockinRob 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks for the welcome-want to be wikibuudies?SPOV 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the concept of "wikibuddies". What do you mean? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for welcome

thanks for the welcome jeffq, i've been around on wikipedia and wikisource for a while. I'm just trying to make sure at present that article on Gerhard Dorn is so-spelt on page at present is without an H, a typo error i cannot change, should be easy for you to tho' quicker than explaining how . CheersNorwikian 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier for me to do it than to explain, but then you wouldn't know how to do it, eh? It's pretty easy to do — just click on the "move" tab at the top of the article, make the change in the box labelled "To new title", add an explanation (like "correct spelling"), click on the "Move page" button, and presto! You're done. If anything goes wrong, then you can call for assistance from any of the sysops (like myself). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for welcome message

Hi Jeffq, thanks for your welcome message --Uğur Başak 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

QOTD work

Looking at the progress you made with the date pages, I was pleased, but to simplify things a little, before you proceed much further, I think that I should update all the months pages to the newer format where past QOTDs are above the suggestions, and I will attempt to get this finished within the next day. ~ Kalki 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That would help, but don't feel obligated to do so. I've gotten a pretty good system going now, where it only takes me about half an hour for 12 month-dates, including the transposing. (I'll take it in whatever form I get it.) One thing that I haven't done yet that will require a second pass is to grab the older past-QotDs that aren't currently in the month pages. However, it seems like this could easily wait until after the conversion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! --BlueLegion 13:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw Im Osbus on WP. --BlueLegion 13:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hay, Mind if I tell you a joke? Wazzawazzawaz 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you don’t want to hear it. Anyway, what should I do when some wiseass geek kid removes my Gandhi quote just because he can’t find it on Google? I have it in a hardback book about him right in front of me. You know, what is this world coming to when people use computers for everything. Wazzawazzawaz 03:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it, you don't respond to messages/questions ? Wazzawazzawaz 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wazzawazzawaz, you are making and acting on many assumptions about Wikiquote and wikis in general that are likely to quickly earn you the reputation of being a nuisance editor. In addition to the points that Kalki made above, allow me to add a few in response to your questions that I've cited immediately previous:

• You cannot assume that someone is going to respond immediately to your postings. Wikis are not telephone calls, instant message services, or chat rooms. Users may be absent for days, weeks, or even months, and one has no way to tell when they might return.
• I did not respond quickly to your queries because I was (and am) busy on a very time-consuming project that is related to Wikiquote's purposes. I also rarely engage in "chit-chat", boring though that makes me.
• Your use of the phrase "wiseass geek kid" when referring to an editor with whom you disagree is against the Wikimedia Foundation's policy of no personal attacks. It is a bad idea to assume anything about the nature of editors. Even attempting to deduce their personalities and other facets, simply based on their edits, can be challenging. (I have, in the past, been quite entertained by some of the gross misunderstandings people have had about me that were based on my user page and picture.)
• I cannot address your question about the Gandhi quote because you didn't specify what the quote was, who removed it, and when this happened. The general question of how to address content disputes is to bring it up on the article's talk page. Any editor can add, edit, or delete a quote. If two or more disagree about the text or the desirability of the quote, they should discuss it — civilly — on the talk page.
• If you have a book with the quote, the best thing to do is to cite the title, author, ISBN and/or publisher and date, and page number as a full source. (You can see how this is done on any page with a "Sourced" section. Robert A. Heinlein has a number of citations with various levels of specificity, the most complete being under The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.) This enables other editors to verify the quote, and gives you the moral high ground in arguing for specific wording. It does not, however, guarantee that someone won't disagree with you. The entire Wikiquote community is the "editing board", and like any board, we must discuss with each other what quotes we as a community wish to include or exclude. (Wikiquote does not attempt to include all quotes on any substantial subject, just a representative sample, so we must negotiate such matters with each other.)

In your future postings and activity here, I hope that you (A) have more patience while waiting for responses, (B) avoid denigrating others just because you disagree with them, and (C) do not use Wikiquote talk pages and the village pump as a chat room. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

News

This is the official Riley on rails, back and unblocked! Riley on rails from {{PAGENAME}}

I have placed a permanent block on this user (the second one tonight). - InvisibleSun 06:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry about needlessly duplicating your block on another variation of this pest earlier. I feel pity for someone whose life is so empty that they find this kind of activity interesting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! ;-) --Iceberg2000 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Qotd watcher account

Well, at this point, I'm about 63% done with month-date page creation. I should have no trouble finishing up in the next 2-6 days, depending on my meatspace acitivity. I've noticed a problem, however. My watchlist has gone from about 800 pages to 1100+, and will end up near 1300 when I'm done. I would like to watch these 378 pages (including the month pages), but I think I'd rather do them in a separate account solely for watching QotD activity. I could create a well-documented sockpuppet for myself for this purpose. But I'm thinking that you might also want to have a special QotD monitoring account, and that we might not even need multiple ones, just a role account. Apparently these are "not sanctioned" for general use in the Wikimedia world, but have been established for special cicrumstances. I just started looking into this, and don't really know of any existing practices in similar situations (which there must be), so I'm just throwing this out for consideration. If nothing comes of this, I'll probably just create my own sockpuppet and let everyone else do as they wish. (After all, accounts are cheap, eh?) Let me know what you think about this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comments just before taking a four hour nap, which is about double the time I had actually slept in the previous two days. I usually need only 4 hours or less of sleep a day, but if I get much less for too long, I do get weary. I typed a response and then napped before finally editing it, to insure that it was sufficiently lucid and comprehensible. This is a final form, such as it is...

Using multiple accounts for dividing up one's workload is an entirely legitimate reason for having them, and in such matters my view is "do as you will." Multiple accounts are only objectionable to the extent they are used improperly, ie: to skew voting results, or by nuisance makers aiming to be more of a nuisance to others.

On other issues: usually for three or four days of the week, sometimes more, sometimes less, I have to make the selections for QOTD by about 22:45 UTC rather than being able to wait to about 00:00 UTC, and yesterday was one of those days, so I had already slotted the QOTD when you made your rankings and comments around 23:30 UTC. In response to some of your points I would say that I too, like Heinlein, reject such casual and simplistic assertions as "violence never settles anything." I, too, recognize that it can sometimes settle a great deal, and that responding to brutal will or the infliction of violence with fierce resistance and retaliation is sometimes entirely appropriate and necessary; but I can also recognize that to initiate the violence and warfare, and to seek to use overwhelming force or the threat of it as one's principle method of persuading others to comply with one's will or defer to one's aims, is not usually an exhibition of the highest level of either prudence or wisdom, and the resentments and results of engaging in such methods can often have immediate and long-range consequences that can far outweigh any immediate benefits or advantages obtained. Thus ElBaradei's assertions that "war rarely resolves our differences" and "Force does not heal old wounds; it opens new ones" are such as I also entirely can agree with, and find no inherent contradictions in accepting many of his observations and perspectives as well as many of Heinlein's.

Issues of human conflict, both rational and irrational are always complex, and though there are many ways I could expand on my own views on this complex subject and related ones, I will for now limit myself. Despite being acutely aware of many dark and tragic tendencies in human beings, in general I do tend to side with many paths of hopefulness and optimism. Though I can acknowledge many, or even most, forms of it are based on a great deal of ignorance and naïveté, contrary to the ideas and presumptions of many, I hold that most paths of general cynicism, pessimism, and despair are even more so. Humanity advances and declines in many ways, but in the last few centuries of human history, there are very strong patterns of advance, in both awareness and capacities for human concord and happiness, despite the accompanying advance of some forms of danger, discord, and devastation, largely caused by those deeply entrenched in certain patterns of prejudice, arrogance and hostility.

Thanks for all the technical work on the date pages by the way! I have noted it, and am appreciative. I had begun to update the formats of the remaining month pages several times, but never got a chance to entirely finish even one. ~ Kalki 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about my own pessimism, which comes, like the old adage about a conservative being a mugged liberal, from crushing disappointment after decades of supposedly incurable optimism. I still believe in having a bias toward featuring positive and optimistic quotes.

As far as the formats go, really, you don't have to worry about it. I've handled some of the updated entries, and it literally takes me no more time to copy an updated one than an older one, in any of the several forms they come in. That's a great advantage of having to do so much in a short period of time — you get really quick at adapting to whichever format applies after you do it a few dozen times. That's why I like to volunteer for such odious tasks. I see the need, realize how unlikely it is to be done by intelligent people who have more interesting things to do, and commit myself to relatively brainless work to give myself a feeling of being useful. It harkens back to my days as a full-time programmer, when I would get so burnt out by round-the-clock programming that I would take a day off and help a co-worker re-route communications cables just for the variety. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you Act

Hello, before you replace that message on top of my page, please see the message I left for Kalki. Thanks Wazzawazzawaz 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From Kalki's talk page:
A Note for you

Before you make a bold statement such as this:

NOTE: the edit history of this user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism and trolling, that this user was inadvertently revealed to probably also be using IP 216.164.203.90 at the time, and despite an apparently feigned naivete also exhibited immediate familiarity of blocking procedures and an indication of immediate awareness of "Riley on rails Tape Recorder" as a "WoW" incarnation. I am thus blocking this account permanently as merely another incarnation of a known troll-vandal. ~ Kalki 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) See also IP 216.164.203.90 at Wikipedia for some characteristic edits of this vandal. ~ Kalki 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have evidence to support you bold and somewhat rude claims. Putting such a statement at the top of my Talk and User pages is undoubtedly to designed to scare people away from communicating with me on Wikiquote and in effect make me want to leave. So instead of being a coward and creating a new user account, I took it down and left this message with you. If you have a reply, if any, just ask. Again, happy editing! Wazzawazzawaz 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not presume that I could not be mistaken in some regards, but If anyone has any interest in wasting their own time as much as this vandal seems to like wasting the time of others, some of the evidence of this account being the "sock puppet" of a truly pathetic attention-seeking vandal is contained in the history of edits by this account, in indications of specific familiarity with details of policies and user histories despite a feigned "newbie" level of awareness (which are also characteristic of many of the posts of IP 216.164.203.90 at Wikipedia), and a less than 2-minute response time in erasing the name Wazzawazzawaz from the Wikiquotians page after it being posted by User:216.164.203.90, which I did assume to be a strong indication that this was simply the vandal hoping to erase an inadvertent and obvious trace of the IP, and of some of his activities here. ~ Kalki 20:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I might conceivably have mistaken one vandal for another, but do not believe I am at all mistaken in detecting an intent to vandalize, and to waste other people's time. ~ Kalki 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, Kalki. I had seen how the evidence was piling up when it was occurring on the 12th. I am doing this not just to respond to what should normally be a legitimate request, but also as an exercise in demonstrating for future editors how to spot this kind of attack. I'm still compiling the information, but I can already see that it is quite evident this "newbie" is not only an experience wiki editor, but is aware of wiki features and capabilities unknown to the vast majority of wikians, making it bleedin' obvious he's a vandal. I plan to point to this user's talk page in the future when justifying similar blocking actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User Tawkerbot2 needs to be blocked now

JeffQ, User:Tawkerbot2 is as we speak, vadalizing many articles! CALQL8 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Already been blocked. For any who might not know, en.wiki has a vandal-reversion bot called Tawkerbot2 that reverts page blankings and the like. Obviously, someone has noticed, and thought it'd be funny to do some vandalism here under the same name as the en.wiki bot. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. :D

thanks for the welcome. Gave me some good advice :D thx. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:TaoLishao

Thanks from LiniShu

Thanks for the welcome! I have been a Wikipedia editor for about a year, but am new to Wikiquote, and am now finding it interesting to explore / contribute to the connections between the two projects. LiniShu 01:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical Squrrel Army

Jeff, what are your thoughts on the The Mechanical Squirrel Army page? It seems to me we had had some discussions in the past about these types of pages, and the fact that the quotes contained therein were not notable enough for inclusion. I was reluctant to flag the page until discussing the precedence for such a move with you. My instinct is that it should be deleted, or moved to a user's page. Your thoughts? ~ UDScott 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first question is, "What the hell is 'The Mechanical Squirrel Army'?" The quote article hardly makes this clear. It says it's "a guild in the Blizzard MMORPG World of Warcraft", but is this an element of a computer game, or is it a social organization of game players? Or is there one of each? The next step is to go to Wikipedia for clarification. No article, no results looking for "Mechanical Squirrel Army" with WP's search. This, in my opinion, already justifies a VfD nomination, if for no other reason than to get the creator to produce some meaningful information and notability evidence. (If they create a WP article in response to our noting its absence, which, in my experience, pratically never happens, we can AfD-nominate it there to get a truly large editing community to examine the question. As they make decisions in 5 days instead of 2 weeks, we can get the results before our VfD closes — very convenient.) My Google check suggests that the most prominent aspect of "TMSA" is the real-world organization and/or its discussion board, which would make it nothing more than a bunch of unnotables quoting themselves from a wiki-unreliable source, confirming it as non-WQ material. (I imagine that's what took you in the direction of moving it to a user's page, presumably Mentorjr (talk · contributions) or Krazyman (talk · contributions).) Anyway, those are my thoughts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

confused by some of your suggestions

RE: Talk:Philippine-American War#Cleanup

Thanks for the comments. I am putting them all in. Question about two of your suggestions:

places all of its numerous sources in a separate section, instead of citing them with the quotes per standard practice

uses formatting that makes the start and end of some long quotes unclear

Can you give some examples of a page which has the correct formating, or better yet, change one quote in my page to reflect what you are trying to say?

Thanks for your help.

Signed: Travb 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

QOTD work

I've just had a few minutes to check in on things, and only have time to drop a quick note right now, but the June page looks good, and i've just used the page for the 29th. ~ Kalki 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work, and congratulations on completing an immense task that increases the options available for users, now and in the future. The pages look much better now, the access to them is increased, and the user's date preferences are more broadly relevant. Looking at the pages, I think it is probably good to change the heading on the month pages soon; I was considering something on the lines of :

This page lists quote of the day proposals specifically for dates in the month of <Month>, and quotes proposed should ideally have some relation to the day, or persons born on it, though sometimes exceptions can be made, usually for notable quotes that relate to recent events, such as the death of prominent individuals. Developing ideas of people or works to quote on specific days can be explored through the Wikipedia page: List of historical anniversaries. The numeric section heading of each date is also a direct link to the Wikipedia list of births, deaths, and other events which occured on that date.

Any ideas for other changes or additions are welcome. But there is no hurry; you have certainly done a lot lately. ~ Kalki 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your change sounds fine to me. I have some other ideas, and a whole backlog of possible work (like filling in the missing QotDs from days of yore), but as you say, there is no hurry. I think I'll focus my QotD attention for the next few weeks on catching any questions from users that might be thrown my way. (I also want to start adding quotes & votes again, but I doubt I'll be able to do this in any significant amount until at least mid-July.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)