User talk:Jeffq/2007b

Add topic
Active discussions
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.

VFD closures

Jeff, looking at how you just closed a VFD vote, the process looks pretty easy, but I wonder if the steps are documented anywhere (as the steps for nominating a page are). I'm not sure where to place them - I don't know if it is appropriate to put them on the vfd page, but maybe on the Admin's page. ~ UDScott 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit easier than before, given our new system. Instructions for closures are in Wikiquote:Deletion policy (as we don't have a "deletion process" page like Wikipedia), but they haven't been updated with the new process, which hasn't been finalized yet anyway. I've been dragging my feet on raising the issues I alluded to at Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion#Deferring official VfD change, which are what motivated me to delay the review for acceptance that I myself had recommended. It's time I get serious about this, so Wikiquote isn't held up by my concerns. I look forward to your input and efforts to help us get caught up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What fault, good sir?

The following posts were copied from User talk:Aphaia ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know why you reverted the quote I had posted on the "Environmentalism" page. Writtenright 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

I'm still wondering


I am still wondering why you reverted my addition to the "Environmentalism" page. I assume that there is a reason.Writtenright 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Fain would I ken thine innermost design

Fain would I ken thine innermost design/ For having done thy bold deletion new;/ And, having lost fore'er a text of mine,/ I only seek to ken thy point of view./Writtenright 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

The writer, abject, plaineth for good cause

Thou mayst, as is thy wont, "revert", "delete"/ Those lines which thou thyself may deem not meet;/ But I do only beg for reason true,/ And that thou wouldst explain thy point of view./ Writtenright 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

What fault, good sir?

I have my point of view, as thou hast thine,/ Regarding what be base and what be fine./ What fault, good sir, did lie within my text?/ I bid thee but explain, for I am vexed./ Writtenright 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

And here was my response. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Pray sir, fret not into a tizzy
Aphaia's, with divers wikis, busy
Nor might she kenn your fine rhymed line
As English b'not her favored wine
Some patience must we ask you please
Her native tongue is Japanese
So, in her stead, might I suggest
To cease this chat; be not a pest
Do not your reputation worsen
She gave her cause at "famous person"
Tho I had not agreed with that
I 'fessed reluctance to look at
The general bind of round'bout quote
Of bumper stickers others wrote
The wisest course to make your case
Is posting in the proper place
The talk page of the subject hence
Is where to 'scribe your evidence
And argue for the chosen quip
Then let the controversy rip
Or, failing that, a silent crowd
Would indicate the quote allow'd
In any case, to aid your task
Feel free, if any questions, ask
~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Teapot tempest, pray, be stilled!

Sir Jeff, I thank thee for the time

Which thou hast spent in worthy rhyme,

And to the talk page I'll repair

To plead my cause in public there.

I had no mind to be a pest,

But, rather, cause for merry jest;

And eke it seemed I had good cause

For bending little wikilaws:

One "Agent Smith" is quoted there,

Who is no "person"; is this fair?

"Anonymous" is there below;

Aphaia let that matter go!

And therefore, sir, do mark my rede:

This quote of Murphy's shall proceed,

For it be wise and full of wit,

And so I have re-posted it.

And pay thou heed to words well-spoke:

The lady doth not get the joke.

Writtenright 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Mercy! Where are the Vogon Constructor Fleets when you really need one? ~ "Forty-two" 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Pipe down, Forty-two, lest ye be rent in the gobberwarts! And Writtenright, I suspect the lady didst get the joke better than either of us thought, after a brief exchange I had with her elsewhere. I must say, you folks certainly make wiki-work more entertaining. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks Jeff !! Vinch 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding quotation on hope which you deleted.

having looked at the wikiquote policy i am convinced that a quote from a supposedly 'unnotable person' should be acceptable- i am not breaching any wikiquote rules ( please check the policy yourself if you have forgotten it) as per the 'source' objection of yours it is very clearly under the unsourced section of quoatation page on hope. it most certainly is the best quote on the page anyways- do delete a good quote just on the basis of it not coming from a famous person sounds very shallow and against the spirit of wiki and open source. i have put it back on and if you remove it i will fight for it and take it higher in wikiquote. thanks. - drhgupta

If you will read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, you will see, under the section titled "What is Wikiquote?" the following bulleted point: Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. This is why Jeff removed this quote from the Hope page. If you would like to place this quote on your User page, feel free. But it does not truly belong on the Hope page unless you can provide adequate evidence on the notability of the person. ~ UDScott 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Drhgupta, I have again removed the quote from Hope by an unidentified person named "Rajat Hazra" after you restored it. As UDScott indicates, it is the "likely unnotable" aspect more than the "unsourced" part that lead to its removal. (Even so, unsourced quotes are intended to be sourced eventually, so editors should not be surprised if or when they are removed after someone fails to find any reliable source for them.) Please note, too, that there is no need to email editors to discuss Wikiquote content issues, as you did with me. It's best that such things be discussed openly on talk pages.
Finally, your argument about "the spirit of wiki and open source" is fallacious. Wikis are designed to allow anyone to edit. This does not mean that anyone can put anything they want to into any wiki. Each wiki still has its own domain, policies, and practices. Wikiquote's domain is described in the first sentence on its main page, and its policies and practices must conform to those of its owner, the Wikimedia Foundation. Likewise, "open source" merely means that the material is made freely available by some means — in Wikiquote's case, under the GNU Free Documentation License. This says nothing about what content should go into the project, only what may be done with it by outside people and organizations.
Let me know if you have any questions about this, and thank you for understanding and cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace,Love,(you know the rest)

Hi This Is WrestlingManiac i want to thank you for the jump start on wikiquote

Peace,Love,(you know the rest) WrestlingManiac 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Jeff, I wonder if you've noticed some of the speedy deletions being performed by User:Cbrown1023. It seems to me that in some cases, he/she is being a little overzealous in applying the Speedy Delete criteria. I haven't looked at all of them yet, but one jumped to mind right away: Dennis Fakes, which had been nominated for VFD, but was kept after a no-consensus vote. I'm all for cleaning out wikiquote, but I wonder if this admin is doing a bit too much. Your thoughts? ~ UDScott 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, UDScott. I don't have time to look into this right now, but in general, I would agree that an article that had achieved "no consensus" in a previous VfD (like Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Dennis Fakes) should not later be speedy-deleted. It should probably be renominated, and/or possibly reverted to an earlier version if the current content is bad enough to otherwise justify an SD.
Regardless of the situation, however, I believe that the best thing to do when one has a disagreement with another editor (sysop or no) is to first bring it up directly with them on ther user talk page. They may have justifications that aren't obvious, or they may not themselves have considered other aspects of the situation. I recommend you discuss this with Cbrown1023 before bringing it up as a larger issue.
In the meantime, I have noted in my absurdly long Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion#Concerns as we prepare to make the new system official that, as Wikiquote grows and we gain more editors and sysops with more varying experience and ideas, we have an ever greater need to establish Wikiquote:Deletion review. It would be good for us all to read up on how this is done on Wikipedia and consider how it might be set up on our simpler project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello guys, I restored Dennis Fakes. Generally sysops may not speedily delete articles which survived VfD. Instead they are recommended to list it VfD again. And cross-projectwide policy seems to say Speedied pages can be restored without review, I undeleted the article in question. I'll talk to Cbrown1023 about my undeletion, but also humbly ask UDScott to talk with him too. --Aphaia 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't take it as a personal insult that Aphaia restored it and don't mind if any sysop overturns my actions, as long as they leave a good reason in their summary (contacting me as well wouldn't hurt). Just to state something, I would never speedy delete an article that achieved "keep consensus" in a VfD. Cbrown1023 talk 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not object to a review of (speedy) deletions. Cbrown1023 talk 14:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the one quote from that page into Parenting (the other option suggest in the VfD), attributed the contributor in the summary, and deleted the page. Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean that you renominated the page, I assume, given the current state. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. Cbrown1023 talk 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh and in case you didn't notice, the Wikiquote:Deletion review link turned from red to blue. :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Like magic! But, to paraphrase magician Marshall Brodien, "magic's easy when you know Cbrown1023" (and other editors with more time and energy than I'm demonstrating right now ☺). Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of quotes in literary works

Jeff, I am in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Cat's Cradle about how quotes should be ordered for a literary work. I maintain that they should be presented in the order in which they appear in the work, usually grouped by chapter, to help with verification of the quotes. But another user has brought up the idea that if they are grouped by character it might be more useful for the casual user. Do you have any thoughts on this? [I'll also pose this question to Kalki for further insights] If you have any input to this, can you post it on Talk:Cat's Cradle? Thanks. ~ UDScott 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted one of my ponderous essays on this issue on the article's talk page. I wish I had the time and energy to collect all these things to make proper arguments in the relevant pages (like WQ:CITE, WQ:SOURCE, and the genre template talk pages). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


That icon is so tacky. It really cheapens the articles and makes them look like toytown or Woolworths. It's so intrusive and out of character with the overall style of a page. I got the idea originally from this one (not by me) on WP.[1] Are you against any real people or just living ones? What's the unseemly angle? Tyrenius 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I liked Woolworth's! ☺ Wikimedia seems to favor stylized icons, at least for the projects, so I assumed that we shouldn't use images for ordinary icons, especially of living people (even if the source appears to be public domain). But after I reverted a couple of your changes, I noticed that, as you say, Wikipedia is also using people's images for some of its people stubs. I haven't looked into whether this was just someone's bold action or a debated decision. Given the ambiguity, I won't oppose your changes for now. I guess we'll see what the community thinks about this (assuming anyone else even notices!). I confess it would be a challenge coming up with a wide range of stylized icons for the increasing number of stub messages, and using the same image for a group does seem a little less useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, i'm the main contributor to the article on lehi group in french. I see the article on wikiquote was deleted few weeks ago. I want to create a new article on lehi, without the previous problems. I don't know very well wikiquote, but i suppose you can help me. I would want to publish the "18 principles of rebirth", that you can read here. The full text is a little bit to immportant for an article, to my mind. Is it possible ? You can answer me here.. Christophe Cagé.

Over the Hedge 2 is blocked for deletion.

But I Was Looking for the TVGUIDE.COM AND to News ANd That's Why You Put a Protected Titles. -DelarionDavis92 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you just aren't making sense. The reason this title is protected is solely because (A) the film does not exist yet, and so cannot have verifiable quotes; and (B) you have repeatedly attempted to create it against many different kinds of warnings and a block. Articles that cannot contain sourced quotes are routinely deleted, and editors who repeatedly ignore Wikiquote standards and refuse to listen to advice on how to work within these standards get blocked.
You also fail to make clear what you mean by the rather ungrammatical and opaque statement that you were "Looking for the TVGUIDE.COM AND to News". If you mean by this that you are looking for material on the TV Guide and EOnline websites, we have nothing to do with these. If you mean that you have information from these websites that you are trying to add to Wikiquote, you should say this and provide links to this information to make your case.
Even so, we probably wouldn't accept speculative information on non-existent movies even from otherwise reliable sources, because there's no way they can be sure the material won't be changed or even deleted by the editors before a film is released. You may not have noticed, but much of mainstream press these days, especially the entertainment rags, is not much better than sheer rumor. Wikiquote aspires to be much more reliable than that.
To answer your earlier question, "Hey, Would You Tell Me What Am I Gonna Do", I would suggest that you stick to adding verifiable quotes from works that are already released, telecast, or in print. If you have any other questions, let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from da Bug

Please see my response. Nanobug Locked Out! 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Attacks: Thankyou and Request

Hi, Jeffq:

I don't think it is possible for me to thank you enough for all the valuable insight you provided into last nights attack, and previous Wazz attacks. Nevertheless, for the record "Thank You"

In addition, I wanted to ask that you help me with my new project, brought on by these sophisticated, yet childish, attacks. I plan to create a webpage, independent of the Wikimedia Foundation, where wiki users can provide synopses, such as the one you provided. At this page, new admins and generally all good faith editors can read over to better help them be prepared for attacks such as the one last night. I really think it would be a good idea and help prevent all the wasted time that these attacks are creating.

Well, let me know what you think, and again thanks. 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Jeff Q.

I'm worried right now because the same vandalising expert, Wiki-Star from wikipedia has come here. He has been blocked under approximately ten names on wikipedia. As we know, I've been maintaining the sopranos wikiquote page for more than a year now, adding all the quotes and maintaining not to cross the ten quote maximum. Just recently, Wiki-Star came and reverted some words here and there. I reverted back to the real contextual version. I don't want to enter a revert war with this major vandaliser. He has also vandalised my forum and he keeps bragging about it on his user pages. He is also following me across wiki boards and reverting all my contributions out of spite. That is why I am requesting that you make sure to ban him in case he keeps reverting incorrectly. Thanks again, your loyal contributing friend. - Zarbon 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wiki-star: Excuse me? but I wouldn't be talking if I were you Zarbond[2]. i never "vandalized" anything here and on your "forum" do not call me a stalker! like you, i love Sopranos too and i can't believe you missed that on the subtitles! I fixed you. No one has to be banned here all i'm saying is that you CALM DOWN and talk it over, rather than tattle-tell. Wiki-star
  • As you can see, this vandaliser has been following me practically everywhere and reverting and responding to my contributions. Heavy precaution should be taken to deal with this threat now. I can provide a heavy amount of evidence of this vandaliser's activity on wikipedia and the sockpuppeteering that has been done. This vandaliser has created over ten names on wikipedia, followed my activity, and reverted and vandalized both wikipedia, wikiquote, and my forum. He also has a horrible tendency of teasing and calling me by names such as "Zarbond", etc. - Zarbon 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Change in solo top-rank QotD votes

Kalki, I notice that you just removed your suggestion that folks only choose a single "4" (excellent) rank per day for quote recommendations. I thought that was a sensible restriction, pushing us to choose only one "best" quote per day, which would also reduce vote inflation. What made you change your mind? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't so much change my mind, as simpy resigned myself to the fact that the suggestion didn't seem to be having much effect. I had noticed this for some time, but I never sought to impose it as an absolute restriction. Up until today it seemed a suggestion that kept no one other than myself reliably constrained, and I actually used two 4s today, though I currently will not likely use either of these for the QOTD. If you strongly think the suggestion should remain, I could revert my changes. ~ Kalki 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I would like you to know I've followed the suggestion strongly. It makes a great sense as JeffQ said. However sometimes it would be helpful to make it elastic, as you mentioned, Kalki. How about seeing what happens for a while? --Aphaia 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a regular enough participant in QotD to have much say in how it works. I was mainly just curious. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" quotes

Poetlister, I am troubled by your frequent support of quote articles merely because the quotes are "interesting" or "reasonable". Is it your opinion that Wikiquote should include articles for anyone at all who says something witty? If so, have you considered how we could ever hope to define "witty" or "interesting" in a way that we could expect to maintain the quality of Wikiquote? (I quote Dan Tyler's article on "The 25 Worst Web Sites" in PC World: "And in a place where "U are soooooooo hot!!!" passes for wit, MySpace isn't doing much to elevate the level of social discourse." You've seen enough wrestler articles alone to realize that the first part of statement is absolutely accurate.)

Futhermore, we would face a problem with verifying quotes. Far too many people are more than happy to claim that they are the original creators quotes, or attribute to others this feat, when it is simply not true. The way Wikiquote avoids this is the same way Wikipedia avoids inaccurate statements, by demanding reliable sources, not just sites like "Jane Doe's Quote Website" that anyone at all (or maybe just Jane's friends) can edit, and that never, ever, EVER include sources themselves. Reliable sources also help us identify the subject, as publications with editorial boards and reputations to protect are far less likely to print rumors and false claims from unidentified people and works. (This is unfortunately a less reliable restriction for quotes than it is for other factual information, as even professionally published quote collections frequently fail to do their homework, but it's a bare minimum criterion for any hope of quality in quote collection.)

I am always happy to engage with active editors who disagree with me on various issues because it keeps me on my toes, forcing me to rethink old ideas and better express my arguments. Could you explain your reasons for promoting interesting quotes regardless of the source or verifiability? And if I am not representing your beliefs and actions accurately, please correct me. (It would hardly be the first time I've misunderstood the honest efforts of others!) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My, have you got the wrong end of the stick! I'm here to build a collection of worthwhile quotations, not a collection of inanities by famous people.
Of course I want verifiability. But if a quote is a good quote and is verifiably by a total unknown then we should not reject it just because it is by an unknown. If I find a quote in a standard dictionary of quotations and add it, would you move for VfD because the author had no Wikipedia articles? Conversely, if a page by an undoubtedly notable person consisted entirely of rubbish, would you vote keep on VfD solely on grounds of notability?--Poetlister 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we agree on the idea that quotes should be "worthwhile", as slippery as that term may be. We have both been fighting against inanity in wrestler quotes, and there is so much more of this in our current set of quotations even from unquestionably notable subjects of all kinds.
But I think we disagree on what "verifiability" is. I would argue that it is inherently impossible for a quote from a "total unknown" to be verifiable. The best we can achieve for an unidentifiable person is that a reliable source attributes the quote to a name (or to "anonymous"). I believe (and have argued elsewhere in the past) that this is an acceptable sourced attribution — not as satisfactory as a firm source, but good enough, at least initially, for Wikiquote purposes. A standard quote dictionary is a "reliable source" by Wikimedia terms, even if it is wrong. In theory, its accuracy can be cross-checked with other reliable sources.
The key point is to ensure that the source is actually reliable. Web quote sites, as I'm fond of saying, are hardly better than rumor-spreaders. They have more in common with lyrics websites (which often contain very useful raw material but also incorporate and spread the most absurd errors) than they do with, say, news websites from established organizations. Even the best-intentioned sites are run by people who show little or no awareness of the need for proper sourcing. That's what sets Wikiquote apart from all the rest.
One of the greatest ignorances of our Internet generation is just how easy it is to make stuff up and get it spread across the virtual globe. This lack of awareness persists despite weekly examples of Internet fictions, scams, and other disseminations of falsehood that are reported in the press. (The "reliable" press has even been a periodic victim of these inventions, perhaps because the senior staffers, who are wise to the ways of hidden agendas, fail to understand the revolutionary elements of the Internet, while the newer, tech-savvy workers are too naive to sense the inevitable manipulation of self-promoters, pranksters, and people with axes to grind.)
The founders of Wikipedia quickly discovered this unfortunate aspect of easy anonymous publishing, which is why they mandated the principles of reliable sources, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The implementation of these principles may differ somewhat for quote collections, but they are still essential for creating an accurate compendium. Quote worthiness is certainly a more obvious requirement, but that only means it's necessary to focus more effort on accuracy, as fewer people will spend time worrying about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry but please listen to me. Wiki-star has created another user name sockpuppet under the name H*Bad. He is posting in my talk page the same exact way and he is following my contribs around and replying to them in order to avoid his ban. He is also using different computers in order to avoid having the same ip address and he is still following me around. Please help me, I'm sick and tired of this sockpuppeteer vandalizer doing this on both wikipedia and wikiquote. - Zarbon 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He just created another username called H*Bad12345 and is replying to his own responses with his sockpuppet. - Zarbon 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee

How can I join the Welcoming Committee? PhishRCool 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, honestly I would like to see somehow experienced people as prospective member of WC, not a user who began days before on Wikimedia project. But others might have different thoughts. --Aphaia 14:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, PhishRCool. We don't have any protocol for joining the Welcoming Committee, but as Aphaia suggests, it's usually something that one does after accumulating some experience with a project so that they are able to provide answers based on that experience. I'm sure the rest of the Wikiquote community would agree that we want to make sure that folks on the committee are in a position to give timely, accurate answers to the kinds of questions new editors might have. (In fact, my delay in responding to your query is making me consider if I should take a break from the committee until I'm ready to be faster with my own assistance.) I'd recommend you get some significant experience with Wikiquote first, then see if you'd like to join this very visible effort. Let me know if you have further questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What books or movies should have articles?

(WAS "New to Wikiquote")

Hi Jeffq I am new to wikiquote and would like to know what types of books or movies should have wikiquote articles. Can you please leave a message on my talk page 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)AFUSCO

Well, that's a rather broad question. Basically, we want quotes from books and films that have achieved some notability in the world at large, not personal or "vanity press" publications or very obscure films. A basic (but not absolute) rule of thumb is that if it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it's usually not notable enough for a Wikiquote article. (But even Wikipedia subjects must have some verifiable and interesting quotes to rate a Wikiquote article, of course.) You can review w:Wikipedia:Notability and its related pages for plenty of detailed information on how this can be determined. But the short answer is that we tend to favor books and films that have gained some verifiable, independent attention in the press or popularity in their field. The English Wikiquote community also tends to prefer works that achieve this status in the English-speaking world, although there is considerable debate about this, and this may change in the foreseeable future. (In any case, we do want English translations of any quoted material so that our readers can actually understand them.)
A special note about books: we are currently trying to avoid book articles unless the book is extremely well-known and very quotable. In general, if one wishes to quote from a book, it's usually best to start with a "people" article for the author and list the quotes with citations for that book. (If there are several quotes, one can create a section to collect those quotes. See Wikiquote:Templates/People to see how that is done.) We also have increasing concerns about too much quoting from copyrighted works, so we try to limit the number of quotes from any single work to a few of the most "pithy" ones. Take a look at Dean Koontz for an example of how to quote from books within an "author" article.
I'll give you a few guidelines I often use to decide whether a work is a good subject for a Wikiquote article. (These are not rules, just some handy tools.)
  • One should first be able to collect a few interesting quotes. (There's no point in creating a quote article unless you have the quotes first. Quoteless articles usually get deleted very quickly here.)
  • If one has some quotes, the next thing to do is to see if the subject is notable. If there's a Wikipedia article, one can use a few sentences from that article to identify the subject and provide a link to the article (again, see the "people" template mentioned above). If there is no WP article, one should probably see if the subject is known in the general world. Has it been reported on in the mainstream press? If it's a book, is it a bestseller, available in your local library or the U.S. Library of Congress, or does it have some visibility on or one of its non-U.S. affiliates? If it's a film, is it listed in the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)? Most notable books and films will pass one or more of these tests. If the work you're quoting does not, be prepared to provide verifiable evidence that the work has some established notoriety.
These are some basic ideas, but there is plenty of variation in practice here. Don't be afraid to try something out if you think you have a good idea. The worst that can happen is that the community may decide it's not what we'd like for now (although even these opinions can change over time with the changing community). If you have specific works you'd like to ask about, any questions about anything I've said above, or other general help, please let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


As it says, thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


AFUSCO 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


... thanks again for the Welcome. Hope it's okay if I shamelessly used your Userboxen structure on my User page. Yours, Smee 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC).


Hi Jeff - not sure if you have had the time to look at the mail I sent you? Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

another sockpuppet alert

there's another wiki-star sockpuppet running around again. It's YogaKing34. All the same types of vandalisms done by wiki-star, completely vandalising pages with curse words and nonsense. - Zarbon 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

even more sockpuppets

I have to point out that Wiki-star has created an additional two sockpuppets and they are Master Batour and Frieza to go along with the other six or seven sockpuppets that he has created and have already been blocked. I find it my obligation to point this out because he has still continued to vandalize not only the articles but the wolfenstein 3d deletion talk, which he is sockpuppeteering at least five names. The above mentioned are but a few examples that still need to be blocked. - Zarbon 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Jeffq. You mentioned in the wolf3d chat that these sockpuppets are best left to deal with by sysops. The problem is that I'm not seeing them dealt with thoroughly. For this many administrators not to be able to handle some simple sockpuppets is becoming excessively annoying. For one, it's more than obvious that they are all sockpuppets since the same user is using the same sockpuppet names from wikipedia. You can go ahead and run an ip check to confirm the validity of my accusations. I know it may not be in my place to make these accusations, but for one thing, please don't tell me not to make accusations when I know full well a sockpuppet when I see one. All you have to do is look at his user pages. They're a dead giveaway and it's completely irritating me knowing for a fact that the same person is going around with over ten names right now and nothing is being done to stop him. - Zarbon 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What I realize is that you are causing more traffic that any of these supposed sockpuppets, to the extent that I imagine some of my fellow sysops are beginning to wonder if you're not one of these sockpuppets yourself. (We frequently get vandal sockpuppetry in which someone carries on heated arguments with himself to provoke other editors into rash actions.) I still believe that you are an earnest video-game enthusiast who appears to have a problem with a tag-along editor who enjoys provoking you, a troll whom you continue to feed by allowing yourself to be provoked. I understand your frustration, but repeated posts to multiple editors' talk pages for every incident that occurs tends to have the opposite effect that you apparently expect.
I believe Wikiquote is currently experiencing a crisis of community confidence in its methods for analyzing problems, as evidenced by the signficant drop in the regular editors' participation in most administrative issues. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to focus purely on urgent project-wide problems (like blocking vandals that are truly obvious because of the actual content of their edits, not just conjecture, however suggestive) and general article editing. I can assure you that all active sysops watch Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. This is the single best place to raise such issues. I apologize if we are not dealing with your problem in a more timely and thorough fashion, but everyone here is a volunteer, and we're doing what we can at the moment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeffq, I have read every single line at the policey you made and will never stop following the rules. Zarbon is mean to me. All he does is vandalise by saying i am a sockpuppet of strange people I dont even know! please ban him and vote on the dbz page and delete it. Thank you very much. Sk8terhatapost was made 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) [JQ]
You gotta help me. Zarbon keeps calling me a vandal and removes that tag. Definitely, HE is the sockpuppet here. Look at his wikipedia account and his banned ip. All he does is picks on me cause I'm a kid. Please ban him. Sk8terhatapost was made 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC) [JQ]
Sk8terhata, I'm afraid I can't take your first statement as accurate. You have already demonstrated that you are unaware of basic aspects of the Wikiquote deletion process. Also, various other elements of your editing style and frequency undermine your claim to complete innocence in this situation. Please address the problems I listed on your user talk page before insisting on action against other users. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say. i trust in your words and make sure the deletion stays. Sk8terhata

Thanks for banning Zarbon. Did wonders so now i can edit in peace. I didn't know about the tildes. thanks you. I will do it. Sk8terhata 18:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zarbon has not been banned, only temporarily blocked. He has shown plenty of good-faith editing to offset the problems that have gotten him blocked in the past, and I hope that he will return to focus on that work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my page

I haven't been on Wikiquote for a while, so im replying asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L141414 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Jeff, thanks for the help with the clean-up! I saw that a bracket was left so I just nixed it. Is there anything else you think I need to do in order to ensure the wiki-quality? The templates were the biggest issue for me, I could not figure out what I was doing wrong. Thanks again! RingWars2007 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to mention it after all your work on the templates in Brimstone (wrestler), but we don't typically use footnotes for source citations on Wikiquote. Standard source lines are double-bulleted under each quote. (See Wikiquote:Templates/People for our standard structure/formatting example.) When we do use footnotes for quote sources, it's usually to collect a bunch of identical citations with slightly different information, or with much more detail than is necessary for the basic source citation. (Take a look at some of the footnotes in Dean Koontz for a substantial example of the former; Mae West demonstrates the latter.) Even so, many editors feel these end-note citations defeat the requirement to make clear, specific sources obvious for the reader, as it requires a jump to the page bottom to review the source.
I'm not saying you should change it, but don't be surprised if someone else recommends a change or does it themselves. We have some prototype policies on these matters at Wikiquote:Sourcing and Wikiquote:Citing sources, but I believe discussion on them is currently stalled — a not uncommon situation here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have finnally done it!

hey Jeffq, I have successfully done all 3 steps. Look at my last changes. I will correct the Buu one that i saw was not fixed by Link. Weeee! Sk8terhata 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Are there "notability" requirements and the like for creating new quote pages on individuals and/or topics on Wikiquote, as similar to Wikipedia? Smee 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes. In fact, they're pretty much the same. Much of Wikiquote practice is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, with most of our policy pages created to provide specific Wikiquote variations on general Wikimedia practices. As the opening sentence of our Main Page states, we collect quotes "from notable people and creative works" (emphasis mine). One factor that helps us determine notability, as it does for Wikipedia, is insisting on reliable sources for quotes. Those sources help demonstrate notability (although they aren't necessarily proof of this admittedly fluid concept). We consider sourcing so important that we split most articles into "Sourced" and "Unsourced" to physically separate properly sourced quotes from the others. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks Jeff - I thought that might be the case but preferred to take unaggressive route - regards --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I read around and a name jumped out at me Jeff - may be worth looking at this. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Herby! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

In reference to the Michael Moore page, do I have a point or am I being completely unreasonable? My objection might appear narrow, but I am arguing from a point of principle. Wikipedia should not become a dumping ground for website links that produce only negative sentiment. That applies to Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, or any other political commentator and social critic. I am probably being a little too aggressive about this, though my opinion is strong. I have proposed a compromise, to jettison the external 'Fahrenheit 9/11 Controversies' and 'Anti-Moore' websites and replace them with a link to Michael Moore at the Yahoo! Movies Directory. As you can see, 18 such sites are listed in the 'Anti-Michael Moore' category. User:Kalki has rejected this proposal on what I believe are flimsy grounds, saying the directory is "commercial" and not "directly related to the subject of the page" (other links that have advertisements like IMDB and YouTube do not seem to generate the same concern). For these and other reasons I am forced to conclude that Kalki's rejection lacks consistency. I would be grateful for your considered opinion. Thankyou. smb 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the specific situation for this article, only the general problem I raised earlier. In my opinion, "External links" sections should not be used to prosecute ideology wars or to promote commercial, political, or other promotional interests. IMDb is a standard link to aid identification of TV/film subjects. YouTube is almost never an acceptable source of links. If editors of an article can't agree on how to provide a select set of link appropriate for a quote article on the subject, my reaction is typically to delete them all, using the following rationale:
  • The obligatory Wikipedia article link should provide more than enough external links, and they are welcome to fight this battle for us.
  • Given WP, our best EL filter is to provide only links to reliable quote sources not already cited.
This usually invalidates all but the IMDb or similar standard neutral genre-related links, especially since most quote websites are not reliable by Wikimedia standards. If after all this, you and Kalki still have a disagreement that is not resolvable on the talk page, I suggest you ask for more community participation on the village pump. By the way, you should use the much simpler form of wiki page linking, which for the Talk:Michael Moore page looks like this:
[[Talk:Michael Moore]]
More editing tips and other useful information can be found in the links provided in the welcome message on your talk page, especially Wikiquote:How to edit a page. I hope this information is of some use to you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sopranos

Did you know that the page was leaning to 400 kilobytes? I tagged it wth copyvio, but I won't have it deleted cause I thought we should discuss it beforehand. I knew Zarbon on wikipedia (we talked by e-mail) and he always did overdo articles, kind a like this. Let's talk, I'm awaiting your answer. Brendan Filone 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What The Hell Have I Done?

Why was I blocked I don't even know what I am supposed to have done that is destructive. Confused Recoome

Can you answer me please? Recoome

A user named "Recoome" has been found to be a sockpuppet via CheckUser requests on both en:Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia, as part of a general investigation into a widespread sockpuppetry battle centering around anime articles with other usernames/sockpuppets, many of which are participating in exactly the same kinds of policy-ignoring editing warring now on this project. I would be derelict in my responsibility if I did not block all identically named users who have participated in this conflict here. I know that you know this, and are just jerking my chain. But even if you didn't, I believe I have justification to block any IP addresses that are clearly being used by the people involved to evade blocks on their usernames, as you have done with at least two separate IPs today alone.
There is a CheckUser request on Meta that should give us confirmation of the suspicions I've detailed on WQ:AN. Erroneously blocked usernames or IPs, if any, will be unblocked. Until that request is processed, the editors who have been blocked would best serve their claimed desire to participate usefully in the project by not adding to their offenses by evading these blocks. But since the participants have shown nothing but contempt for Wikimedia project policies, I expect no such restraint. I will continue to temporarily block any IP that attempts to pester editors until the appropriate authorities have had a chance to investigate the evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


As it says Jeff, keep an eye & let me know when I go wrong, regards --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe those wikipedian basterds

I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for no reason. I will edit productively here and will confirm that I am not w:User:A Link to the Past or w:User:A Link to tha Past. A Link to the Past 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How was Link banned if its not showing here? A Link to the Past 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've already made clear at User talk:A Link to the Past and w:User talk:Jeffq#Eureka Seven, your new username here has been blocked as a sockpupppet of User:Link, which was blocked on 17 June and remains so for now, as can be seen in Special:Ipblocklist. Furthermore, your rudeness and your selection of a username that is virtually identical to an existing WP user, your claimed typo linking User:Link to the WP user, and Link's involvement in ongoing anime sockpuppet battles does not bode well for having your requests executed. As I've already said on my WP talk page, patience and politeness is your best bet now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Imogen Heap/VFD

It's the fault of {{Copyvio}}; I used that templated and it gave me a link to a new section, so I just did that. Thanks anyway, though. Will {talk) 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the technical problem. I'll look into fixing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jeffq/2007b".